Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
That is unfortunate.
I agree. It is unfortunate.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That is unfortunate.
That there is original sin is not Christian teaching. That all sin (except Christ) is Christian teaching. The doctrine of original sin was invented to give those who devised infant baptism a rationale for their practice, though it has a serious effect on Christology, too.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)?
Is that a problem?So back to my point about this representing a huge instance where the bible is hopelessly vague and open to interpretation...
It's just untrue, though certain factions would prefer not to think so.Is that a problem?
Four Jews, five Judaisms.So just because Judaism doesn't now accept original sin, doesn't necessarily mean it never did. You can see many ideas in Judaism that evolved with time, such as the concept of Tikkun Olam.
Wasn't the original, or first sin, committed by Satan at Gen 3v4 that Eve would surely not die? Isn't that why Satan [John 8v44] is called the father of the lie.
Father meaning life giver would mean Satan, so to speak, gave birth to the lie.
At sinning, Adam lost his healthy human perfection of mind and body.
Adam, as family head, could now only pass on to us what he himself had which by that time was only human imperfection of mind and body.
Even parent knows at birth that a child's leanings will be toward imperfection.
God did not make that choice for Adam. Adam made that choice and passed down his choice to us.
At death we can not resurrect oneself or another so we need someone to do that for us. Perfect Jesus balanced the scales of justice for us by being the ransom for our sins due to the imperfection we inherited from Adam.
God did not have to send Jesus to earth for us. Jesus was not forced to do what he did for us. Because perfect Jesus died faithful, Jesus makes it possible for us to gain either life in heaven, or everlasting life on earth in healthy human perfection of mind and body that Adam originally had.
In God's due time, Jesus will make all things new according to Revelation 21v5.
Here's a good article talking about the Jewish position.
Of course, having been raised Jewish I'm biased, but it does seem to be that the Jewish position is closer to reality. That is, the idea that my ancestor's actions cause me to be born with a certain nature violates my understanding of reality.
Bruce said:Briefly, the discrepancy happens because many (not all) Christians ignore the Jewish scriptures' statement that sin is NOT inherited
The doctrine of original sin says that we inherit a state, not accountability/guilt for the act(s) of someone else.Zadok said:I do not believe children are born in sin. I believe such a doctrine to be pure herasy.
These quotes from the Roman Catholic Catechism belong to the organisation that destroyed Christianity for a millennium by making everyone 'Christian' simply by their being born within its influence, without having to make the choice essential to become a Christian. So one may expect duplicitous nonsense in this book. And nonsense is what we find here, wrapped up in language that may take in the unwary. Sin is said to be a state, not an act. But sin is not sin unless and until it becomes act, even a mental act, an intention to act against one's conscience. So a neonate is sinless- that does not mean that it is deprived of holiness, because it is ineligible for holiness until it has the choice to do evil.The doctrine of original sin says that we inherit a state, not accountability/guilt for the act(s) of someone else.
404 "...It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act."
405 "Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence"."
I think your view is perhaps colored too much by fundamentalists...I agree. It is unfortunate.
You can still to this day call yourself Christian without actually making the choice to be Christian, many people do.These quotes from the Roman Catholic Catechism belong to the organisation that destroyed Christianity for a millennium by making everyone 'Christian' simply by their being born within its influence, without having to make the choice essential to become a Christian.
No, it is not. Original Sin is said to be a state and not an act.Sin is said to be a state, not an act.
We agree.But sin is not sin unless and until it becomes act, even a mental act, an intention to act against one's conscience.
We agree...So a neonate is sinless-
It is deprived of the goodness of human nature that humanity was originally created with. When God made man 'it was good', compared with now where 'there is none good but God'. Our nature was damaged, we are inevitably led to sin by the corruption brought about by the fall.that does not mean that it is deprived of holiness, because it is ineligible for holiness until it has the choice to do evil.
Indeed, they do. Some call themselves Christians in ignorance, while others knowingly make the claim in order to misrepresent Christianity- as prophesied.You can still to this day call yourself Christian without actually making the choice to be Christian, many people do.
It is still reckoned to be sin.No, it is not. Original Sin is said to be a state and not an act.
Yes, it was good. Man was not good. What was good was the situation that God had created, that was capable of testing mankind morally. Of course God knew that the majority of people were not good by nature, because if the saints are elect to life from before the beginning of the world, the rest must be elect to death from before the beginning of the world.It is deprived of the goodness of human nature that humanity was originally created with. When God made man 'it was good',
Our nature is undamaged. God does not damage anyone. Nobody damages us unless it is ourselves. We damage ourselves, our eternal consciences, on the first occasion that we sin. That cannot be inevitable, or sin would not be culpable.Our nature was damaged
404 "... "
405 "..."
EXCEPT, of course, that this is man-made doctrine and not scripture at all!
And scripture, as I pointed out, REJECTS inheritance of sin!
Peace,
Bruce
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.Kejos said:It is still reckoned to be sin.
we're just going to have to disagree, I believe God made man good, and our decisions led to us being not so.Yes, it was good. Man was not good.
No one is good by nature except God.Of course God knew that the majority of people were not good by nature
Who said it was God that damaged our natures? We did it. It was through Adam that death came.Our nature is undamaged. God does not damage anyone. Nobody damages us unless it is ourselves.
"All have sinned."That cannot be inevitable, or sin would not be culpable.
Did you read what I provided?Bruce said:And scripture, as I pointed out, REJECTS inheritance of sin!