The Doctrine of Original Sin

[kejos]

No, it is only sin in an analogical understanding... original sin is the state we are born in to, it is the phrase we use to describe our fallen nature.

All we are born into is opportunity to sin.

we're just going to have to disagree, I believe God made man good, and our decisions led to us being not so.

That is without textual support, though.

No one is good by nature except God.

And yet the saints, heirs of God, were known before the beginning of the world.

Who said it was God that damaged our natures? We did it.

We do it. Ourselves. When we first decide to do what is wrong.

It was through Adam that death came.

And everyone is Adam.

"All have sinned."

No one is without sin.

Jesus was...

Thus sin is inevitable.

...so sin is not inevitable.

You do not inherit sin, you inherit the consequences.

But not the responsibility.

 

[Mister Emu]

All we are born into is opportunity to sin.

We are born into an inclination to sin. Our fallen nature drives us towards it.

That is without textual support, though.

When God created us we were "very good".

And yet the saints, heirs of God, were known before the beginning of the world.

Therefore?

We do it. Ourselves. When we first decide to do what is wrong.

Our natures come pre-damaged by the fall. We further harm ourselves by willfully sinning.

And everyone is Adam.

Speaking of textual support...

Jesus was...

God...

...so sin is not inevitable.

Everyone who is not God needs God's forgiveness.

But not the responsibility.

We agree...

 

[kejos]

We are born into an inclination to sin.

That's absurd. We do not want to sin.

When God created us we were "very good".

When God saw all that he had created, it was very good, having been completed. The scene was now set for man's testing, to see who would live, and who would be destroyed.

 

[jmvizanko]

Is that a problem?

Well not for me, as I realize that Christians believe in a book that they have no hope of knowing they have interpreted correctly, and therefor have largely arbitrarily acquired beleifs about what it means. Its the reason Christianity is the most sectarianized of all religions.

 

[kejos]

Well not for me, as I realize that Christians believe in a book that they have no hope of knowing they have interpreted correctly, and therefor have largely arbitrarily acquired beleifs about what it means. Its the reason Christianity is the most sectarianized of all religions.

The problem that humanity has with the Bible is not that is it unclear. The problem that humanity has with the Bible is that is it much too clear for comfort. The proliferation of lies about it is deafening testament to that.

 

[jmvizanko]

The problem that humanity has with the Bible is not that is it unclear. The problem that humanity has with the Bible is that is it much too clear for comfort. The proliferation of lies about it is deafening testament to that.

So the fact that Christianity is so sectarianized is evidence that the bible is too clear?

 

[kejos]

So the fact that Christianity is so sectarianized is evidence that the bible is too clear?

So clear that people try to ridicule the idea.

 

[jmvizanko]

So clear that people try to ridicule the idea.

That people ridicule an idea is more evidence that the idea is ridiculous than that they are just rebellious to it.

 

[kejos]

That people ridicule an idea is more evidence that the idea is ridiculous than that they are just rebellious to it.

But they don't ridicule it. They only try to; usually in a way that shows that they are lying.

 

[Mister Emu]

That's absurd. We do not want to sin.

We have a natural disposition towards sinning.

When God saw all that he had created, it was very good, having been completed.

Man was part of that "all that He had created", and thus, very good.

The scene was now set for man's testing, to see who would live, and who would be destroyed.

Our purpose is not the be tested, but to commune with God.

Its the reason Christianity is the most sectarianized of all religions

The reason Christianity is so sectarian is that people decided to start interpreting in a vacuum, absent community and historical context.

 

[kejos]

We have a natural disposition towards sinning.

If we are without conscience, I suppose.

Man was part of that "all that He had created", and thus, very good.

So the sea and the land were very good? Not much of a compliment.

Our purpose is not the be tested, but to commune with God.

But most of us won't commune with God.

 

[Evandr]

In response to post #40 I have a few thoughts.

I agree with Mister Emu for the most part but I would like to clarify a few points.

Adam and Eve did not sin any more than a small child would if they picked up a stick and hit another small child, it depends on weather or not they have the mental capacity to make the choice between good and evil. Adam and Eve had no such capacity, they had an understanding of cause and effect but for them the act itself was a simple choice driven by factors we cannot truly understand. Maybe they were in the garden so long (we really do not know how long they were there before eating the forbidden fruit) that they simply got bored and decided to try something new at the behest of Lucifer. The thought of "Why" they should obey the Father and not Lucifer never went further than "he said what He said" and thanks for the information but we'll take it from there. The Father being wise and in authority and Lucifer being an enemy to God was not a concept they understood until after the fact.

We inherited mortality from our first parents and nothing more, our responsibility for their actions goes no further than our responsibility for the actions of anyone else in history including our neighbors.
My second pointy stems from the first. Mankind is not born guilty of sin. To say so implies that we brought the guilt from the presence of God and that is not possible because no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God or that God is unjust and that also cannot be true. In the pre-existence we had no more mental capacity to know good from evil than did Adam and Eve. Being born into the world by mortal parents carries with it no more guilt than being created into the world as was Adam and Eve. To say that a child is born into the world with guilt attached is to say that Adam and Eve were guilty of sin before they partook of the fruit and were given the ability to commit sin.

The whole thought of "original sin" is blatantly illogical and undermines the love and justice of God. Mankind is prone to committing sin not because they are born evil it is because they are born innocent and allowed to be tempted by the very powerful forces of Evil. This experience of cause and effect serves two very important purposes; first it gives us experience and second it tests or character to see if we have the strength and will to defeat Lucifer, something that God has more than amply armed us with the ability to do but will not force us to do.

 

[Mister Emu]

If we are without conscience, I suppose.

Even with, we have a part of us that calls for us to do wrong. That is the corruption, and we were not created with it.

So the sea and the land were very good? Not much of a compliment.

Yep, the sea and land we very good too... I fail to see how being very good beings in a very good world diminishes the value of the compliment.

But most of us won't commune with God.

Unfortunately, and that was never intended... at least not by God...

 

[kejos]

Even with, we have a part of us that calls for us to do wrong. That is the corruption, and we were not created with it.

So temptation is corruption? If so, Jesus was corrupt.

Yep, the sea and land we very good too.

So the land and the sea are heirs of God?

Unfortunately

So it's a matter of luck, salvation?

 

[Mister Emu]

So temptation is corruption? If so, Jesus was corrupt.

No, the corruption is what compels us to give in to temptation, in full knowledge that we are doing evil.

So the land and the sea are heirs of God?

What?

So it's a matter of luck, salvation?

I wonder how it is that you are deriving what you are from my posts... No, it is not...

 

[kejos]

No, the corruption is what compels us to give in to temptation, in full knowledge that we are doing evil.

We are not compelled to give into temptation.

No, it is not...

Then it's not 'unfortunately'.

 

[Caladan]

How can there be such a large discrepancy between what the Jews believe about the biblical foundations for original sin (it doesn't exist) and what the Christians believe about it (its integral to their need for a savior and their entire faith)?

This is one of the best questions I have seen posed on RF, and there have been some great questions.

Augustine was the first theologian to teach that man is born into this world in a state of sin. Judaism on the other hand teaches that a man is born not evil nor good, but a human.

 

[Mister Emu]

We are not compelled to give into temptation.

We are driven forcefully by our nature to do so, so yes, we are.

Then it's not 'unfortunately'.

Indeed it is unfortunate that many do not commune with God.

 

[kejos]

We are driven forcefully by our nature to do so, so yes, we are.

If it is inevitable, it is not culpable, and therefore not sin.

Indeed it is unfortunate that many do not commune with God.

Because they have no choice but to 'sin', presumably.

 

[kejos]

Augustine was the first theologian to teach that man is born into this world in a state of sin.

A novelty.