Originally, where did original sin come from?

[sincerly]

I don't understand what you have seeming dissected. I am left not seeing the concluding point.

Since, I said 'Life comes from Life' it agrres with what you said, 'there is no potential for "nothing" to produce "something".

I am speaking very simplistic logic.

I said that in life there is "LIFE & DEATH".

This therefore represnts a Dual state of reality. It is commonly referred to as the "Laws of Duality".

With that simple statement, I explained that,

"What is alive Now, will later die ..."
so therefore by the same logic,
"What dies Now, will later live ..."

This is what my scriptures teach.

Hi Mohinishaktidevi, The discussion thread has to do with "original sin". That last statement of yours is the clue to your not understanding my post. Does your scriptures have any teachings on "original sin"/consequence of sin"? Or even the definition of what constitutes sin?

Let us look at your original post and my answer.

[
Originally Posted by mohinishaktidevi
(1)It comes from the last birth lived.

(2)If a new birth comes into existence, this indicates that before the birth there was no life, but the potential for the birth layed dormant (so to speak).

(3)Before there was the egg there was the latent potential of the egg.

(4)Life comes from life.

(5)Sin is a thing that is ascribed to the once living and to future life too.
]

[Hi mohinishaktidevi, Welcome to the forums.
I took the liberty to number your responses.
Your #1 can't be answered until you explain where/how #4 occurred.
And #2 is impossible because #4 is the source of life. there is no potential for "nothing" to produce "something"---life. the same with #3

Therefore, #5 relies on the Scriptural account/explanation for ALL one observes/acknowledges.----A Creator GOD.]

Explaining my Answer from the Biblical Scriptures point of view:

What is the origin of #4 "Life" since "life comes from life". A "potential" has no life--it is only a thought/idea/an unfounded realization from one who is capable to produce it.
Therefore, before one can produce something from nothing there has to be "Life" to do so.
In Gen.1 and 2 one finds the "Source" to be the "Living Creator GOD"---and "death" is what is passed on to mankind( The first and second Deaths----Unless One has been "born again" as per the Biblical scriptures.)

 

[joea]

Came from you!, ..within you also lives the murderer. The saint is also the sinner . I don't know much about scriptures or their history, but look and you will see yourself both in the good and the bad in all your doings ..

 

[mohinishaktidevi]

Does your scriptures have any teachings on "original sin"/consequence of sin"? Or even the definition of what constitutes sin?

Yes. It occurs to me to ask which event is the OP referring to.
Original Sin proceeding birth in this life time (which I was referring toin my comments), or, Original Sin proceeding birth in the "Material-World" (outside the realm of the "Eternal Kingdom of Heaven").

In my scriptures, the bonderies of the Material world of Births and deaths is described, along with the timeless transcendent spirit (non-material energy, 'shakti') exists, where Pastimes with Godhead exist eternally. In my scriptures, each soul began its decent out of the "spiritual sky" into the material world, as a result of 'Envy of God', as I remember, it is due to a 'desire to Lord over all as God does' that causes the downfall and our first birth in the material world.

It says in my scriptures, as I remember it, that after the first birth there is a chance to be re-born back in the spiritual sky, but we (all souls in 'samsara') have all been here in the material world due to 'forgetting' our original relationship with Godhead, and so we souls have been in samsara since time-immemorial. The saving grace about all the lost time is that in the eternal Kingdom of God, that is transcendent to the material world of time and space, ther is "No Time".

In the eternal Kingdom of God there is no time.

Time is a part of the illusion of material life in the material world in 'seperation' from the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

From Christ we learn ettiquette as how to approach Godhead in Heaven, where God has his own (spirit) name, (spirit) fame, (spirit) form, (spirit)
personality, (spirit) pastimes and (spirit) abode.

In my scriptures, Matter is defined as 8 elements (in this order, earth water fire air either mind intelligence and ego) combined to house each living Spirit (soul, atman).

In my scriptures, Spirit is defined as being a tiny spark size individual soul, that is simply a part and parcel of the the Supreme Soul (God the Father in Heaven is the Supreme Singular Soul. This is the definition of God in my scriptures).

Most of what I am saying is me paraphrasing what I learnt from my study of scriptures. In my traditional, fyi, heavy emphasis is alway directed to directly quoting scriptures or at least to reference the chapter and verses (for the sake of paying witness to scriptual injunctions, rather then seeming like I can invoke un-foreseen knowledge). My tradition requires direct quotes a proof of source of thought inregards words of the ancients.

Originally Posted by mohinishaktidevi Life comes from life.

there is no potential for "nothing" to produce "something"

A "potential" has no life--it is only a thought/idea/an unfounded realization from one who is capable to produce it.

Therefore, before one can produce something from nothing there has to be "Life" to do so.

The "Source" to be the "Living Creator GOD"

So we agree? The living Soul come from the Living Supreme Soul God the father Almighty in Eternal Heaven? Agreed? That is what my scriptures say.

the revelation of Christ's mercy attests to a verse in my scriptures,
"Only by the mercy of God do with get the Guru, and by Guru we get God"

 

[CG Didymus]

...The living Soul come from the Living Supreme Soul God the father Almighty in Eternal Heaven? Agreed? That is what my scriptures say...

The question is concerning the Christian doctrine of "original sin." Since Jews say it is not from their Scriptures, than where did Christians get it from? Early church fathers are blamed. Is it what Jesus meant in what he taught? For the "born-again" Christians the concept is somewhat of a necessity for most Christians, because it gives God a reason to send Jesus to make an atonement of sorts. Those Christians believe all of humanity is tainted at birth and needs to believe in Jesus and his payment to get salvation to be able to go to heaven. Which is fine, except Jews don't have anything like that. Yet, it is supposedly the same God that is giving us instructions on what he requires of us. Did he change? Did the Jews misunderstand? Or, did Christians came up with a story that made everything fit into their scheme of things?

Your comment brings up an interesting point: The living soul came from God. It somehow is combined with a growing fetus, yet it is now corrupted by a sin nature that it inherited from Adam and Eve? I could understand that the new soul is a blank slate, maybe, and the world is so corrupt that it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to avoid being affected or infected by it. So, anyway, tell me more of what you think of how your beliefs compare with Christianity.

 

[Sleeppy]

It's really just simple logic. You'll look something like your mother and father did. You won't be completely like either however. You won't be completely like Adam, but due to the nature of things, you will do certain things like Adam. Adam was corruptible and corrupted, so are we corruptible and corrupt. Possibility is a result of the former condition.

 

[CG Didymus]

...Adam was corruptible and corrupted, so are we corruptible and corrupt...

The problem then is: Adam was made with a built in flaw and creation wasn't perfect because it contained a deceiving snake to tempt Eve. But, still Jews don't interpret the story as us being born with original sin.

 

[Sleeppy]

The problem then is: Adam was made with a built in flaw and creation wasn't perfect because it contained a deceiving snake to tempt Eve. But, still Jews don't interpret the story as us being born with original sin.

Ignorance is necessary to the creation of individualities. Nothing is understood the same way by everyone. Adam was created good, took some, lost some, and eventually died. His offspring do similarly, by nature.

 

[sincerly]

It's really just simple logic. You'll look something like your mother and father did. You won't be completely like either however. You won't be completely like Adam, but due to the nature of things, you will do certain things like Adam. Adam was corruptible and corrupted, so are we corruptible and corrupt. Possibility is a result of the former condition.

Ignorance is necessary to the creation of individualities. Nothing is understood the same way by everyone. Adam was created good, took some, lost some, and eventually died. His offspring do similarly, by nature.

Man's "simple logic" is only biased to one's own ideas and those ideas which conform to the same thought.(regardless of right or wrong.) Prov.14:12, says it this way, "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death. "
However, The descendants of Noah produced the various peoples that are seen in the world today.
Disobedience is a choice of the individual---not an inherited trait. The "second death" was passed to all who have been born since Adam was created. NONE have to be Disobedient to the instructions of the Creator GOD.
"Original Sin" is seen in the "death penalty" which was passed to all of humanity since no children were born to Adam and Eve(subject to dying the second death) prior to the penalty being pronounced.

"Ignorance is necessary" to perpetuate the continuing in the "death penalty" rather than seeking the solution of Redemption from that penalty by the means the Creator GOD specified.
The choice for Adam's descendants is to take the good and refuse the evil. However, few choose the take or find the narrow path to "HIS prepared mansion".

 

[sincerly]

The problem then is: Adam was made with a built in flaw and creation wasn't perfect because it contained a deceiving snake to tempt Eve. But, still Jews don't interpret the story as us being born with original sin.

Hi CG D, The Jewish Nation(Israelites) failed to interpret those correcting Scriptures and the Prophets as being in regards to them. Their history was one of disobedience and return to where Daniel prophesied(9:24) that as a nation their "house was left desolate". This was confirmed by Jesus Christ's statement in Matt.23:38

Had the Jewish leaders in the day of Jesus Believed Jesus, they would have received HIM as the promised redeemer.

 

[Sleeppy]

Man's "simple logic" is only biased to one's own ideas and those ideas which conform to the same thought.(regardless of right or wrong.) Prov.14:12, says it this way, "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death. "
However, The descendants of Noah produced the various peoples that are seen in the world today.
Disobedience is a choice of the individual---not an inherited trait. The "second death" was passed to all who have been born since Adam was created. NONE have to be Disobedient to the instructions of the Creator GOD.
"Original Sin" is seen in the "death penalty" which was passed to all of humanity since no children were born to Adam and Eve(subject to dying the second death) prior to the penalty being pronounced.

"Ignorance is necessary" to perpetuate the continuing in the "death penalty" rather than seeking the solution of Redemption from that penalty by the means the Creator GOD specified.
The choice for Adam's descendants is to take the good and refuse the evil. However, few choose the take or find the narrow path to "HIS prepared mansion".

When God elected to harden Pharaoh's heart, who was there to soften it again? And who baptised John the Baptist in the Holy Spirit before his birth. Who elects the elect? There is one God. This God specifically testifies of Himself saying, "neither did the parents sin nor he, that he should be born blind," but so that God's almighty power testifies of itself.

 

[sincerly]

When God elected to harden Pharaoh's heart, who was there to soften it again? And who baptised John the Baptist in the Holy Spirit before his birth. Who elects the elect? There is one God. This God specifically testifies of Himself saying, "neither did the parents sin nor he, that he should be born blind," but so that God's almighty power testifies of itself.

Hi Sleeppy, Pharaoh was there, but a lot of his army and people were not(because they died). Why? Let's look at that "hardening process".
Ex.9:16, "And in very deed for this [cause] have I raised thee up, for to shew [in] thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth."
GOD knew Pharaoh's heart/disposition/thinking/reactions, etc. From the very first encounter of Moses and Aaron with Pharaoh it was--"let my people go." In stubborn rebellion, Pharaoh "hardened his own heart".( People still have that attitude against the words of GOD. Scripturally, GOD still means what HE says.)
Did you see any scripture of "softening"? Please post.

However, these questions are really not in line with the OP. But GOD has given many examples of HIS "Almighty Power" and how HE will /did use it.

 

[Ken Brown]

'Original sin' is misleading, because it relies upon the misused word 'Sin'. 'Sin' is an overloaded word. It means too many things and does not do justice to the multiple original words with very different meanings. 'Original sin' is even more confusing and as a phrase is less than hopeless. A more useful expression for us today is 'Original problem'.

The original problem in mankind which Paul mentions is illustrated in the story of Noah where the LORD says "12 And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. 13 And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth." (Genesis 6:17) Note the repetition of Flesh. Paul refers to this problem as 'Sin in the flesh', but calling it 'Original sin' is even more confusing.(Romans 8:3) No wonder the rabbi thinks its not from Judaism. In Judaism you constantly are cutting away the bad aspects of the person (symbolized by the flesh, the fat, the gross parts) as if you were sharpening a knife. The person is a perfectly good knife that needs an edge. This is very different from claiming a person is a total loss until you've converted them.

People preach 'Original sin' as if it implies that the person is worthless, but 'Sin in the flesh' implies that people merely need an edge, a little something extra. They need their rough edges taken off, that's all. The word 'Sin' is Strongs# 266, a word which is used for several things. Sometimes it refers to purposeful sins and sometimes to accidental ones or even to imperfections such as having a string in one's hair. Sin in the flesh is the tendency to do evil, and it is a tendency which has to be trained out of a person. That is why its symbolized with circumcision, separating fat from sacrifices etc. Sometimes it is called the pride of life.

And that is where the phrase 'Original sin' comes from.

Hi Brickjectivity, I agree with you that the problem is "sin in the flesh." But have you considered that Elohim created us "flesh?" KB

 

[Sculelos]

God created Sin and he called it Satan.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Where original sin came from- right from the mind of Augustine of Hippo

 

[chinu]

Originally, where did original sin come from ?

In the beganing we were sinless and one with God, and when we aparted from God and stepped down for/in the work of creation, it was the first sin that we made.

 

[CG Didymus]

Where original sin came from- right from the mind of Augustine of Hippo

Thanks, so many things (doctrines) of Christianity seem like they came from the mind of men, not the mind of God.

 

[sincerly]

Thanks, so many things (doctrines) of Christianity seem like they came from the mind of men, not the mind of God.

Hi CG D, The Scriptures/ writings of the prophets are NOT man-made doctrines. They were the instructions of GOD given to mankind for a right relationship to the GOD who gave them and for mankind to mankind.

Agreed, since the serpent beguiled Eve with false teachings, so has mankind been giving false information and others have accepted that information as correct. However, that which GOD gave remains just as true as at first.

ALL that Jesus did was prophesied and fulfilled. Witnesses were there to verify the authenticity of the events. Because Thomas wasn't in the upper room the night of Jesus resurrection and return from the visit to the Father doesn't mean that the others were lying to him upon Thomas's arrival. (And Jesus corrected Thomas on that next meeting(Feel and see)----to which Thomas acknowledged Jesus as "MY Lord and my GOD".

Those Scriptures(The Bible) tell the method of Salvation and within the pages is the instructions for pleasing the GOD found with-in its pages.
Is GOD the Creator GOD HE says HE is----- OR is HE just a myth in a book of myths as some believe???? Again, the choice is one for ALL who ponder the BOOK.

 

[Shiranui117]

Where original sin came from- right from the mind of Augustine of Hippo

Pretty much this. Augustine actually had very little theological training, and most of the stuff he wrote was on the fly, using his own powers of reasoning. He was a late revert to Christianity, and missed out almost totally on having a Christian education steeped in the traditions, methodologies, and other fundamentals of standard Christian thought and practice. He literally had to come up with his own solutions to problems that the Church had already solved in the Greek East--and his own conclusions sometimes didn't match up with what the Church had decided.

This is the Saint, the Latin Father upon whom the Western Church relied almost exclusively for a thousand years before Aquinas came along. The Latins never quite got any of the other Fathers of the Church in to balance out Augustine's ideas, and so even the stuff that Augustine got wrong (like original sin) was put on a pedestal in the Roman Church that was inviolable.

 

[CG Didymus]

...his own conclusions sometimes didn't match up with what the Church had decided.

This is the Saint, the Latin Father upon whom the Western Church relied almost exclusively for a thousand years before Aquinas came along. The Latins never quite got any of the other Fathers of the Church in to balance out Augustine's ideas, and so even the stuff that Augustine got wrong (like original sin) was put on a pedestal in the Roman Church that was inviolable.

What I usually hear from Christians is that we inherited a sin nature because Adam and Eve messed up. Whether it's called original sin or not, still, it makes all of us in a separated state with God unless we accept Jesus. Is the Orthodox view different than this?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

What I usually hear from Christians is that we inherited a sin nature because Adam and Eve messed up. Whether it's called original sin or not, still, it makes all of us in a separated state with God unless we accept Jesus. Is the Orthodox view different than this?

To me the idea of a sin nature after the fall ignores that Adam always had the ability to sin. No sin nature was needed for Adam to sin. He was seemingly made with the choice to sin. He always had the ability. How does original sin make sense after this?