1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Original Sin

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Ceridwen018, Jun 2, 2004.

  1. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,290
    Ratings:
    +2,684
    I don't think there are more wars today than there ever have been...wars have hardly stopped since the beginning of recorded history.

    If it were not for the actions of Ronald Reagan (and Pope John Paul II as well), the Cold War would have gone on longer. I don't know about you, but I'll bet most people have "slept easier" since the Cold War ended and America and Russia (the two largest nuclear nations) adopted more friendly terms.

    But I'll hold back further commentary for the political forums. 8)
     
  2. anders

    anders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,748
    Ratings:
    +167
    Dear Mr_Spinkles,

    Ronald Reagan and the Pope had practically nothing to do with the end of the cold war. The main reason was the fall of the Soviet Union, as has been repeatedly and convincingly demonstrated, recently in several European newspapers. Those two people just happened to be in office at the time of the events; they did not have any appreciable influence.
     
  3. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,290
    Ratings:
    +2,684
    anders--I will resist the temptation to respond by saying that Reagan had a big role in the fall of the Soviet Union which ended the Cold War.
     
  4. anders

    anders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,748
    Ratings:
    +167
    Of course you will have to resist saying that, as there is no fact anywhere to substantiate that ridiculous claim. I have tried to look into this subject with an open mind for some time. The first time I saw anyone pretending that those two persons were active and effective in the process, I involuntarily rose from my chair in surprise, and went on digging in reliable sources. That writer was a US Catholic; his claim did not in any way correspond to my memories of what preceded the 1989 events, and nothing I have read so far has made me waver in my opinion.
     
  5. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    :lol:

    Mr. Spinkles, anders,

    You guys are trying to nonchalantly prod at this subject, but neither of you are going to be happy without the last word. Perhaps a new thread is in order?
     
  6. anders

    anders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,748
    Ratings:
    +167
    I admit that I hve been rather far from the subject of this topic. Not a very original sin.
     
  7. Lightkeeper

    Lightkeeper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,634
    Ratings:
    +223
    God is good. If we dwell on evil, evil will occur."For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he."(Prov. 23:7 KJV) Dwelling on the good in people brings it out in them.
     
  8. quick

    quick Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    112
    Ratings:
    +0
    No--the point is mankind cannot even obey the most simple of commands, as mankind is corrupted by sin. Therefore, we need to accept the freely given grace and forgiveness of Christ so we need not worry about our peformance in this picayune sense, as we are saved by grace, not by works!!!. Christianity is NOT a peformance-based religion but a grace-based religion, thanks be to God.
     
  9. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,290
    Ratings:
    +2,684
    If we are saved by Grace and not by our works, then it should not have made any difference whether or not the woman looked around. And why would God not give that woman His grace? Why would He kill her, if He loves her? Again, I don't think a loving God would ever do such a thing...I think this was a story designed (perhaps even unintentionally) to control people back then.

    I am seeing another problem here....you say that we cannot obey God's simple commands because mankind is corrupted by sin, but aren't we supposed to be children, and God our Father? When children misbehave, is it because they are 'corrupted by sin' or simply because they are children and do not know any better? I do not think any loving, rational parent would kill their child for ANY reason--much less for glancing over their shoulder to watch two cities get destroyed (which is another barbaric act, and I can't see how that could possibly be true given that God is forgiving/merciful).
     
  10. quick

    quick Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    112
    Ratings:
    +0
    She looked around because she did not have faith in God's word to her--faith is how we accept God's grace. When Abram was told to leave the Chaldees and go to "a land I will show you", he demonstrated tremendous faith, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Faith is the key, and without it, we have not accepted God's grace.

    Also, and many non-Christians just cannot get this (I guess because the have not (yet?) been effectually called), we are all sinners and all deserve exactly what she got--death. God chooses to favor some of us through election and we can then accept grace--our eyes are opened. Many people are offended by this, but it's not any different than a father giving a no-event gift to one child and not another. Neither child warranted the gift, but the father chose to give one a gift and not the other. How can you be upset at getting what you deserve, you say to the one child? How can you not be delighted at getting more than you deserve, you say to the other, who is eternally thankful?

    See this from Ephesians 1:

    3 (9) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in (10) the heavenly places in Christ,
    4 just as (11) He chose us in Him before (12) the foundation of the world, that we would be (13) holy and blameless before [2] Him. (14) In love
    5 He (15) predestined us to (16) adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, (17) according to the kind intention of His will,
    6 (18) to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in (19) the Beloved.
    7 (20) In Him we have (21) redemption (22) through His blood, the (23) forgiveness of our trespasses, according to (24) the riches of His grace
    8 which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight
    9 He (25) made known to us the mystery of His will, (26) according to His kind intention which He (27) purposed in Him
    10 with a view to an administration suitable to (28) the fullness of the times, that is, (29) the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him
    11 also we (30) have obtained an inheritance, having been (31) predestined (32) according to His purpose who works all things (33) after the counsel of His will,
    12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in [3] Christ would be (34) to the praise of His glory.
    13 In Him, you also, after listening to (35) the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were (36) sealed in Him with (37) the Holy Spirit of promise,
    14 who is (38) given as a pledge of (39) our inheritance, with a view to the (40) redemption of (41) God's own possession, (42) to the praise of His glory.
    15

    Here is an excerpt from the Westminster Confession that explains it well. I'll give you the URL so you can look at the scripture references as well, if you like:

    Chapter X
    Of Effectual Calling

    I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call,[1] by His Word and Spirit,[2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.[8]

    II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.[11]

    III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]

    IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,[15] and may have some common operations of the Spirit,[16] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:[17] much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess.[18] And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.[19]



    http://www.reformed.org/documents/
     
  11. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    quick,

    Perhaps...but it all comes back to the fact that god is the one who made us sinful in the first place. Remember? It was even stated as such in the Westminster Confessions:

    "I. Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory."

    Why would god make it 'part of his plan' for us to be sinful, and be 'pleased in our sin' and then punish us for it?

    If my sister got a gift and I didn't, I'd be pissed. Not because I'm greedy and I don't want other people having more stuff than me, it's about the principle of the thing.

    If we're all predestined for everything, then what's the point of trying to earn grace? Apparently, if you're not on the list, you're going to have to look elsewhere no matter what.
     
  12. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,290
    Ratings:
    +2,684
    Parents don't owe their children anything? That is new to me. I think all parents, if they are going to bring children into the world, owe quite a lot...it's called responsibility, quick. The parents who owe their children "nothing" do not truly love their children.

    One more thing, quick-- do you really think you can compare God's grace (which gets people into heaven and out of eternal hell) to a trivial non-event gift a parent gives? I think God giving us His grace would be more comparable to a parent giving his children enough food to eat--it is essential for the children's futures and well being.
     
  13. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    Exactly. And also about the 'non-event gift', for god to give grace to only one of two equally deserving people, shows a severe lack of fairness.
     
  14. zipo29

    zipo29 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    30
    Ratings:
    +0
    that is a pretty good question. Yes we should still be held accountable for that because they spoke for us all. We wouldn't have original sin if we were born from a virgin. Because it only passes through to us from our fathers. Hmm this brings in a new veiw didn't Jesus get born to a virgin that means he wasn't born with a sin nature hmm.
     
  15. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +96
    I believe that original sin is an apostate doctrine. I believe it was spawned in the depths of Catholic esotericism, and it is false. No one is born sinful. We come into this world innocent of any wrongdoing; to believe otherwise is to deny the faith. My actions have no bearing on the worthiness of another man, and Adam will pay for his own transgression, not me. By the way, it was not a sin, it was a transgression. There is a difference, and the difference is important.

    Mainstream Christianity's concept of grace is also often fallacious. The idea that God just chooses one person over another is completely false. Gos is no respector of persons, and we are not in some universal lottery to find out who goes to heaven and who gets the shaft.
     
  16. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    dan,

    You didn't really present a logical case as to why your thinking is correct and the opposite is wrong, but I agree with you nonetheless.

    What is the difference?

    I agree.
     
  17. Lightkeeper

    Lightkeeper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,634
    Ratings:
    +223
    I agree with you. Nice post.
     
  18. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +96
    Thank you, lightkeeper. As for sin and transgression, one has to do with decrees, and the other intrinsic good or evil. Adam did not "sin" because eating a piece of fruit is not intrinsically evil. Murder, rape, stealing is, but fruit is not. It was wrong because God told him not to. That is a transgression, and that is why in no instance in the Bible is it called a sin. It is transgression in every instance. Is driving 45 mph a sin? No, but it may be a transgression.

    TRANSGRESS
    Pronunciation: tran(t)s-'gres, tranz-
    Function: verb
    Etymology: Middle French transgresser, from Latin transgressus, past participle of transgredi to step beyond or across, from trans- + gradi to step -- more at GRADE
    transitive senses
    1 : to go beyond limits set or prescribed by : VIOLATE <transgress divine law>
    2 : to pass beyond or go over (a limit or boundary)
    intransitive senses
    1 : to violate a command or law
    2 : to go beyond a boundary or limit

    SIN
    Pronunciation: 'sin
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin and probably to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is -- more at IS
    1 a : an offense against religious or moral law b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c : an often serious shortcoming

    Furthermore, Adam did not know good from evil; hence, he was incapable of sinning, as sin is to know the difference between right and wrong, and act in opposition to that knowledge. Only after eating the fruit did he gain knowledge of good and evil, and then sin became a reality. If Adam could sin before the fall then the Bible has some serious issues it has to correct.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    Ok I see...that makes sense.
     
  20. anders

    anders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,748
    Ratings:
    +167
    Thank you, dan,

    Your last post was especially interesting, linguistically as well as theologically. The view that Adam and Eve didn't sin seems to be shared by Islam and Judaism; at least Islam states that both of them were equally guilty of the transgression; the Eastern Christian churches do not speak of inherited sin.
     
Loading...