• 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!

Why do Christians accept original sin but not collective responsibility?

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
We're born into the likeness of Adam. As Adam sinned before he had children; so his children are born with sinful natures. And as Adam was already doomed to die before he had children then we all must die also. Because we're made in his image.

As for the things you're talking about. I believe that all of our ancestors have done things we could be ashamed of.

I thought we were made in the image of God?
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
The thread really isn't about slavery it was something you mentioned that spurred the idea of this thread. You see, a collective may recognize some sort of responsibility given enough influence, in this case Christianity and the doctrine of original sin has influenced a lot of Christians to take upon the burden of Adam's sin. The problem with this, is if this doctrine holds true then how is it I am accountable for Adam's sin as well as my own but not of my ancestors who collectively transgressed against the commandments of God?

That is why I brought up slavery and/or the termination of Native American lands. In other words, you can take the responsibility of humankind's ancestor Adam, but not the individual ethnic ancestors who have also done wrong in the name of faith, race, religion, etc.



My take on Original sin is not compliant with the opinion of Christians who subscribe to the idea. In some Christian circles the idea of sins passed down from generation to generation is important to them. I can understand things like a Genetic predisposition to Alcoholism, or Drug abuse. But, bearing the penalty for a sin my Great Grand Father committed, I can not accept.

2 Corinthians 5:17 "Behold, all things are made new ...
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
We Pelagians don't believe in original sin.
As for ancestral guilt...well...I think certain nations are predisposed, genetically to be more dominant than others...but I think it's unfair to say we're supposed to pay for our ancestors' errors.

There is no such thing as genetic pre-disposition to dominance as there is no scientific evidence to back this up except junk pseudo-science. It most certainly depends on the acquisition of resources and material and the ability of innovation. With that being said nobody has answered the problem thus far. Adam is the progenitor for humankind and therefore we can say Adam is an ancestor of humanity. The question is why do Christian accept the ancestral sin of Adam and not of their own cultural ancestors?
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Maybe if it had been written in the Bible to take responsibility for ancestral actions they would accept it
Maybe this is what is meant in the Bible regarding original sin, but all Christians misinterpreted it so far

But personally I do not believe in "original sin" interpretation Christians give. You unlearn responsibility
I see it as a telltale to learn from. How karma works. Listen to your conscience, not to snakes or wives.

So you believe Adam's actions and sins are of his own?
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
There is no such thing as genetic pre-disposition to dominance as there is no scientific evidence to back this up except junk pseudo-science. It most certainly depends on the acquisition of resources and material and the ability of innovation. With that being said nobody has answered the problem thus far. Adam is the progenitor for humankind and therefore we can say Adam is an ancestor of humanity. The question is why do Christian accept the ancestral sin of Adam and not of their own cultural ancestors?


Go your way in peace.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
My cultural ancestors were pretty much dominated by others for hundreds of years.


I'm worried about that. Cultural Domination by others has gone on for all of human history. Here in America, we are accustomed to dominating other cultures. I am just sure that one day someone will be dominating America. What then?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Maybe if it had been written in the Bible to take responsibility for ancestral actions they would accept it
Maybe this is what is meant in the Bible regarding original sin, but all Christians misinterpreted it so far

But personally I do not believe in "original sin" interpretation Christians give. You unlearn responsibility
I see it as a telltale to learn from. How karma works. Listen to your conscience, not to snakes or wives.

So you believe Adam's actions and sins are of his own?

Many stories in the Bible are figuratively. The story of Adam I use figuratively, to learn some important lessons. I don't use the word sin
The lesson I learn is that humans have to listen to God [their conscience]. Following their desires and not their heart will lead to trouble

For many centuries they claimed Adam to be the first man on earth; around ca. 6000 years ago. My Master said that Rama lived 20.000 years ago [and he was for sure not the first]. Science says that humans existed maybe more than 200.000 years ago. So this whole story of Adam and original sin is based on Adam living ca. 6000 years ago. This fact is false IMO. So this whole "sin" story is false IMO. So also from this POV I prefer to use it figuratively.

This sin story was invented in the year 200+ [says wiki], so it's not literally said in the Bible, but it's just an interpretation of Bible verses:
[wiki: The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in his controversy with certain dualist Gnostics.[4] Other church fathers such as Augustine also developed the doctrine,]. Original sin - Wikipedia

Your question "So you believe Adam's actions and sins are of his own?" is a tricky question:
* If Adam was not the first human then original sin makes no sense.
* Seen from pure Advaita "only God exists" then there is no Adam different from God, so this question does not apply

* As far as I can see, this whole "Adam + original sin" is just speculation

And as I already said "the concept of original sin" will make people less responsible for their actions, so not a smart concept IMO. So then it's also understandably that they do not accept "collective responsibility" for the examples you gave either. So seen from this it's also not a good concept IMO
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
I thought we were made in the image of God?

Yes, I find in Scripture we are made in the image of God. Not a physical image but spiritual.
We can all reflect God's main attributes of love, justice, wisdom and mercy.
That is why we can cultivate the Fruit of God's spirit as listed at Galatians 5:22-23.
We can show to varying degrees love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness and self control.
No one has been arrested for displaying those attributes or qualities.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
Sorry for the delay I have time now.

Now, let's take a look at original sin's concept:

"According to Wikipedia, original sin is belief of the state of sin in which humanity exists since the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt."

According to this definition human nature didn't begin to sin until Adam performed one simple act which caused the generational inheritance of sin through the state of being of inherenting the "will to transgress against God." Although you say our sins are own, Christians still adopted the idea that human beings inherit the nature to transgress against God and accept that. Here is the logic:

1) Adam sinned

2) Adam committed one act

3) Adam's progeny inherits the punishment that Adam has done.

In this case if Christians willfully accept Adam's act which all humans thereafter have not done, why don't we inherit the actions of our ancestors that transgress against God and humanity?

I may not be sure exactly what you are asking, but will answer as best I can.
I think the situation was that Adam and Eve represented the human family and at first they had a perfect and open relationship with God. Their sin broke that relationship bringing separation from God and death upon themselves and all their descendants. I don't think it is a matter of accepting their personal sin upon ourselves, rather it is that their sin changed their nature (subsequently the nature of all humans) from spiritual-oriented toward God to sensual- oriented toward self. Therefore, all of us sin our own selfish sins and it is these we are guilty of, not the sins of others. We inherit the sin nature, not their particular sin or the sins of other ancestors. Not sure if I explained my thought well enough to make sense to you.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
I want to credit @Ellen Brown for this idea
Without regurgitating scripture, I'm curious in the Christian theology of original sin ergo, " the sins of the father" why do some Christians not take responsibility for ancestral actions but can take on the responsibility of the actions of Adam? For example many Christians regarding the issue of slavery and/or the termination of Native American lands or the mistreatment of others say:
"I was not around back then"
"My family didn't own slaves"
"My ancestors may have done that but that was a long time ago."
Why is it that you readily accept Adam's sin against God, who by all rights you can claim Adam as the progenitor of mankind, but choose to not accept the actions of your ethic ancestors to lands that did not belong to them or the mistreatment of people?

I have heard besides I was Not around back then that I did Not own any slaves and you did Not pick any cotton.
I find Ezekiel is clear in writing that the son will Not bear the sins of the father as per Ezekiel 18:20.
That is in harmony with Deuteronomy 24:16 that fathers will Not be put to death for the children and vice versa.
2 Chronicles 25:4 B says the same thing about fathers and sons, and that everyone dies for his own sin.
So, in other words, we do Not carry Adam's guilt.
Sinner Adam passed down to us his sinful leanings toward wrongdoing.
If we could stop sinning we would Not die. We die because of our own sin.
So, we do Not take on the actions of Adam, but take on our own actions.
Since we are innocent of what father Adam did, that is why Jesus gave his life for us so we can have a resurrection.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
I may not be sure exactly what you are asking, but will answer as best I can.
I think the situation was that Adam and Eve represented the human family and at first they had a perfect and open relationship with God. Their sin broke that relationship bringing separation from God and death upon themselves and all their descendants. I don't think it is a matter of accepting their personal sin upon ourselves, rather it is that their sin changed their nature (subsequently the nature of all humans) from spiritual-oriented toward God to sensual- oriented toward self. Therefore, all of us sin our own selfish sins and it is these we are guilty of, not the sins of others. We inherit the sin nature, not their particular sin or the sins of other ancestors. Not sure if I explained my thought well enough to make sense to you.


One thing that you said, and that I have often heard... I feel angry and unjustly punished about. Over simplifying a bit, one act of disobedience and we are estranged from God? What if people treated their own children that way? Actually, some parents sort of do, and the effect on the child is sort of devastating. After, my thoughtful analysis, I conclude that the idea of Original Sin is bogus, and that the actions of the Creator in the garden were completely misconstrued.

Add to that is the idea that the first written scripture occurred around 1000 BC, and that some sources say that the events of that time happened around 4000 BC. So we have around 3000 years of old men sitting around the fire gradually embellishing the events?
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Both original sin and the concept of white guilt are monumentally stupid.

I am wondering what you mean that original sin is monumentally stupid. (Adam's original sin of breaking God's Law)
I know of No one who does Not sin.
Some sin on purpose, wilfully, but even if Not deliberate we all fall short.
In Scripture our ' falling short ' is because we are all born ' after ' Adam broke God's Law.
So, we inherited father Adam's leanings toward wrongdoing, Not his sin.
We need to be on the watch so as Not to lean toward badness. That is Not being stupid, but being upright.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
I want to credit @Ellen Brown for this idea

Without regurgitating scripture, I'm curious in the Christian theology of original sin ergo, " the sins of the father" why do some Christians not take responsibility for ancestral actions but can take on the responsibility of the actions of Adam? For example many Christians regarding the issue of slavery and/or the termination of Native American lands or the mistreatment of others say:

"I was not around back then"

or

"My family didn't own slaves"

or

"My ancestors may have done that but that was a long time ago."

Why is it that you readily accept Adam's sin against God, who by all rights you can claim Adam as the progenitor of mankind, but choose to not accept the actions of your ethic ancestors to lands that did not belong to them or the mistreatment of people?

Edit: Changed Thread Title


First I know alot of Christians are taught to believe Adam committed the original sin.
But this is not true.

Nor is Adam the father of all mankind. Nor is Eve the mother of all mankind.
This is nothing more than man's teachings and doctrines,

Had you any idea, that the native American Indians, when they went to war with each other, they would make slaves of the tribe that was conquered and take the land.

Even in other places in the world, would make slaves out of those who were conquered.and take the land.

Even in Africa, one tribe would make slaves out of the tribe that was conquered and take the land.

So you can't say, only Christians did this, when it's a known fact, that everyone on this Earth at one time or another were slaves and had their land taken.

Even my people Israel were slaves 400 years in Egypt.
Which Egypt were African's, that means African's, owe's my people Israel, for having them slaves for 400 years.

So slavery was done by everyone on earth.

You do know, that back in the 1600 - 1670, the first man to own a slave in this country, before it was called United States and before it was called the 13 colonies.
Was a black man by the name of Anthony Johnson first black man to have slaves

Anthony Johnson (b. c. 1600 – d. 1670) was a black Angolan who achieved freedom in the early 17th-century Colony of Virginia after serving his term of indenture. He became a property owner that owned slaves, and was one of the first people in Virginia to have his right to own a slave legally recognized. Held as an indentured servant in 1621, he earned his freedom after several years, and was granted land by the colony.

What's that all about ?
 
Last edited:

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Many stories in the Bible are figuratively. The story of Adam I use figuratively, to learn some important lessons. I don't use the word sin
The lesson I learn is that humans have to listen to God [their conscience]. Following their desires and not their heart will lead to trouble

For many centuries they claimed Adam to be the first man on earth; around ca. 6000 years ago. My Master said that Rama lived 20.000 years ago [and he was for sure not the first]. Science says that humans existed maybe more than 200.000 years ago. So this whole story of Adam and original sin is based on Adam living ca. 6000 years ago. This fact is false IMO. So this whole "sin" story is false IMO. So also from this POV I prefer to use it figuratively.

This sin story was invented in the year 200+ [says wiki], so it's not literally said in the Bible, but it's just an interpretation of Bible verses:
[wiki: The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in his controversy with certain dualist Gnostics.[4] Other church fathers such as Augustine also developed the doctrine,]. Original sin - Wikipedia

Your question "So you believe Adam's actions and sins are of his own?" is a tricky question:
* If Adam was not the first human then original sin makes no sense.
* Seen from pure Advaita "only God exists" then there is no Adam different from God, so this question does not apply

* As far as I can see, this whole "Adam + original sin" is just speculation

And as I already said "the concept of original sin" will make people less responsible for their actions, so not a smart concept IMO. So then it's also understandably that they do not accept "collective responsibility" for the examples you gave either. So seen from this it's also not a good concept IMO

So in other words the concept of original sin according to your explanation is figurative based on the story of Adam. The problem I see with people unable to explain this question is the selective acceptance of behavior. With that being said, I find it problematic Christians can accept the doctrine of original sin, and the generational inheritance but not the responsibility of another. I would further argue that are Christians taking on the responsibility of inheritance of what someone else did but not what others do? This is the problem Christians face.

I can take away the idea of slavery and what early settlers did to Native Americans let's look at some exaggeration like Genghis Khan. It would be seemingly ridiculous to assume the responsibility of Genghis Khan's alleged 40 million total kills during his campaign because you're related to him, and if such is true, why is it not as ridiculous to assume responsibility for inheriting what another individual did? How does the act of one man determine my spiritual status when I did not exist regardless if I descend from him?

Why am I born with a spiritual disadvantage for what another individual did when I didn't exist and how do I inherit the burden of such actions when I did not perform them? If such is true anyway that we all inherit the burden of another then why do Christians selectively inherent the burden of original sin, but not the sin of their own respective collective? The way I see it Christians circumvent by selectively applying the principle that we are burdened with the idea of Adam's sin, but thereafter we are burdened with our own sin, but the problem is original sin begs that the collective is still responsible for the actions of one person.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Go your way in peace.

peace.jpg
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
We can show to varying degrees love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness and self control.
No one has been arrested for displaying those attributes or qualities.

I thought Jesus was...considering Roman Law found no fault in him his only crime was stating he was the "son of God." Regardless you mentioned we were made in the image of Adam now you're saying God but in terms of spiritually. So we are physically in the likeness of Adam but spiritually in the likeness of God. Ok, so how am I responsible for Adam's sin? Is sin a genetic predisposition? If not, genetically then spiritually wouldn't that make my soul which is made in the image of God corrupted considering that I inherent an action I did not commit? Again, why am responsible for what one did but not the other?
 

InChrist

Free4ever
One thing that you said, and that I have often heard... I feel angry and unjustly punished about. Over simplifying a bit, one act of disobedience and we are estranged from God? What if people treated their own children that way? Actually, some parents sort of do, and the effect on the child is sort of devastating. After, my thoughtful analysis, I conclude that the idea of Original Sin is bogus, and that the actions of the Creator in the garden were completely misconstrued.

Add to that is the idea that the first written scripture occurred around 1000 BC, and that some sources say that the events of that time happened around 4000 BC. So we have around 3000 years of old men sitting around the fire gradually embellishing the events?
I can understand that you would feel this way. I look at it from the perspective that God knew whether it was Adam, Eve, you or me each of us would make the same choice and choose the same act of disobedience and we each would on our own become estranged from God.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
.I find Ezekiel is clear in writing that the son will Not bear the sins of the father as per Ezekiel 18:20.
That is in harmony with Deuteronomy 24:16 that fathers will Not be put to death for the children and vice versa.
2 Chronicles 25:4 B says the same thing about fathers and sons, and that everyone dies for his own sin.
So, in other words, we do Not carry Adam's guilt.
Sinner Adam passed down to us his sinful leanings toward wrongdoing.

If you read in the beginning I wanted to stay away from scripture and discuss this in a more casual fashion considering if you started quoting scripture like what you're doing now I'm sure you'll find a learned Jewish rabbi who is also learned in the ancient Biblical language that could interpret those listed scriptures different than what you just did. Consider this source right here:

Today’s big question: did God really say we inherit Adam’s sin?

"In AD 418, the Council at Carthage rejected the views of a man named Pelagius. Pelagius believed that each soul was directly created by God and thus man was born without a sinful nature. If true, it would follow that a person could be saved on personal merit, apart from the Savior’s atoning sacrifice. The Council condemned Pelagianism as heresy because of passages, such as Romans 5:12–21, which emphatically state that because of Adam’s sin, all of his descendants have been made sinners."

Source: Did God Really Say We Inherit Adam’s Sin?
 
Top