Is the concept of Original Sin fair?

[Metatron]

I have some concerns about the fairness of Original Sin and would be interested other forum members opinion on this issue.

One of my concerns deals with the account as presented in Genesis. God tells Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil otherwise he will die. Later of course, Adam and Eve are seduced by that rascally serpent, God banishes them from Eden, and death is brought into the world, etc. The problem I have with this is that by definition, not having yet partaken of the famous apple, Adam and Eve have no concept of good and evil and indeed the threat of death is meaningless to them since they also would have no understanding of what death is! Adam and Eve are innocents who have no moral compass with which to make the decision. Its like telling a toddler who has never been disciplined not to eat the really neat looking poisoned candy and then walking away and seeing what happens.


Another thing that bugs me is the implied concept of inheritability of sin, i.e. Adam and Eve sin so everyone else to the umpteenth generation is equally culpable and has a one-way ticket punched to the Really Hot Place. Where is the personal responsibility in that? Indeed, where is free will if the punishment is already in place without a decision having been made? I would think that God at least would want to punish you for the sins that YOU have committed.

Thank you for your time.

[Cathar1950]

Goat:

Maybe you can start a thread about Isaiah 53. I don't see what this has to do with original sin?

He has done that already and the argument still goes on. But if you like you could go to the following links and read. He was he last poster in both threads. That should get you up to date to what think-tank has to say.
Isaiah 42
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 2509#62509

Isaiah 53
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 2329#62329

As for Pslam 51:5, that is just a poetic way of David saying he was feeling bad and depressed. You are reading one line, and not taking the passage as a whole...
Such a declaration is rare in the tanakah (there are a few other places). Of course, the psalmsist, rather than ask for god to 'transfer' the sins, asks for god to 'hide his face from them' and to blot out the sins himself...

This is one person talking about his guilt feelings, and is not projected on all of man.

That is a problem when they take passages and cram a traditional Jesus upon the material. Even the virgin conception is a prophesy to another kind at another time that was fulfilled. Yet Matthew misunderstood and Luke might have picked it up from his work which was much earlier or it was myths of others god finding there ways into the stories before the were written. Paul seems to think he was conceived like normal people were conceived his dad and mom. Matthew used the LXX and not Hebrew so it fit well into his Hellenistic mind. A Diaspora Jew wrote it In a Hellenistic community of God fearers and Diaspora Jews. Luke it was for mostly gentiles much later and John doesn’t even bother because Jesus was the Greek “Logos” or God’s organizing principle in human skin.

But they project into the text their preconceived interpretations and explain away the problems. They are very selective. If the passage supports Jesus the Messiah with a limited way by being spiritual(even if it is obviously literal and historical) then it is interpreted as spiritual. If a literal (even if it is spiritual) passage would support their interpretation support then that is what they use. As long as it always comes out Jesus and only Jesus is important you will never be able to have an honest or rational debate. If you give up and shake your head in disbelief then the claim victory when it is usually frustration.

It is all very amusing at times. Sometimes they get so emotional and carried away that they say the darnedist things. Then it gets fun provided you are not threaten with hell and called all kinds of horrendous things like liberal, left, atheist, humanist, heretic and others. So far no one has called any one a witch, at least not to my knowledge. Satan I think comes up often but secularist is popular.
Sometimes you get to learn new things but there is a lot of think-tank stuff yet also some excellent sources appear. Usually they do get going pretty good but usually it drifts off because it has mostly been said over and over.
Back to the topic.

I've heard this kind of talk before. Anyone who believes in the real Jewish Messiah, Jesus, is automatically a pseudo-Jew. That's nuts. Well, that must include Jesus the Jew himself then, since he claimed to be the Messiah.

I am sure there are psudo-Jews that don’t believe either.
Some of his followers said he said he was. Then you have to determine what he meant by messiah. Jews, prophets, kings and priest were al Messiahs. The people that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls had two Messiahs. One was he priestly Messiah (son of Joseph) and the other was the Kingly Messiah (son of David) reigning together with the king under the priest. Many separated the two and some groups thought there should be just a priestly ruler. He didn’t fulfill some of the prophesies of either figure but that makes no difference when you hold out for the fulfillment of the end. It makes the purpose of the prophecy rather irrelevant and considering both Jesus and Paul seem to think it was going to be in their generations lifetimes yet two thousand years later we are suppose to believe what you say he said and what he meant with later writers select views.


goat wrote:

As for Pslam 51:5, that is just a poetic way of David saying he was feeling bad and depressed. You are reading one line, and not taking the passage as a whole.

Easyrider responded:

Sorry, I'm not buying that one.

It was his opinion about himself. If you feel that way, that is fine too.
But don’t make us “buy” your feelings of being completely unworthy and evil from your birthand before on ever other living human. David was a traitor an adulterer and a murderer. He should have felt bad.

[Goat]

Oh yes.. the psuedo-jew.

I've heard this kind of talk before. Anyone who believes in the real Jewish Messiah, Jesus, is automatically a pseudo-Jew. That's nuts. Well, that must include Jesus the Jew himself then, since he claimed to be the Messiah.

I am sorry, but Rachmiel Frydland is not a Jewish Rabbi. He was an ex-jew, and undoubtly had a crisis of faith in the holocaust.

I don't consider his writing a good source.

Frydland was a graduate of a Talmudic academy and also studied Talmudic literature at Yeshivat Emek Halacha in Warsaw. He had a degree in Semetic Languages, as well as a Masters in Talmudic Hebrew, eventually completing work as a Ph.d. candidate at New York University. Later he served as Professor of Jewish Studies at Tennessee Temple College and also taught various Talmudic courses later on. If you have an objection to what he taught please make your case. Otherwise I'll have to go with the expert and discount your opinion.

As for Pslam 51:5, that is just a poetic way of David saying he was feeling bad and depressed. You are reading one line, and not taking the passage as a whole.

Sorry, I'm not buying that one.

Do you deny there are Talmudic references to Isaiah 53 being Messianic?

Do you deny there are Talmidic references saying it Isaiah 53 is Israel?

Do you know what the Talmud is? The Zohar is not part of the Talmud.

Did you know that Hillel 2 said in Sandrehdrin 99a that
The messiah won't come, since they already enjoyed him in the days of Hezikel?

And through out all the talmudic discussion about the messiah, not one of the rabbi's thinks the messiah was Jesus?

[Easyrider]

Did you know that Hillel 2 said in Sandrehdrin 99a that
The messiah won't come, since they already enjoyed him in the days of Hezikel?

And through out all the talmudic discussion about the messiah, not one of the rabbi's thinks the messiah was Jesus?

I see you didn't answer my questions. Nor could you answer the objections to Israel being the Servant in Isaiah 53.

But who is this Servant?

"Our ancient commentators with one accord noted that the context clearly speaks of God's Anointed One, the Messiah. The Aramaic translation of this chapter, ascribed to Rabbi Jonathan ben Uzziel, a disciple of Hillel who lived early in the second century C.E., begins with the simple and worthy words:

Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong: as the house of Israel looked to him through many days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples, and their complexion beyond the sons of men. (Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 53, ad Iocum)

We find the same interpretation in the Babylonian Talmud:

The Messiah—what is his name?…The Rabbis say, the leprous one; those of the house of Rabbi say, the sick one, as it is said, "Surely he hath borne our sicknesses." (Sanhedrin 98b)
Similarly, in the Midrash Rabbah, in an explanation of Ruth 2:14:

He is speaking of the King Messiah: "Come hither" draw near to the throne "and dip thy morsel in the vinegar," this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, "But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities."

In the same manner also in a later midrash, the Midrash Tanhuma, parasha Toldot, end of section, it says:

"Who art thou, O great mountain?" (Zechariah 4:7) This refers to the King Messiah. And why does he call him the "great mountain?" Because he is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, "My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly." He will be higher than Abraham who said, "I raise high my hand unto the Lord" (Gen. 14:22), lifted up above Moses, to whom it is said, "Lift it up into thy bosom" (Numbers 11:12), loftier than the ministering angels, of whom it is written, "Their wheels were lofty and terrible" (Ezekiel 1:18). And out of whom does he come forth? Out of David.

These are a few of the ancient interpretations attributing this chapter to the suffering and exalted Messiah.


Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Itzchaki, 1040-1105) and some of the later rabbis, though, interpreted the passage as referring to Israel. They knew that the older interpretations referred it to Messiah. However, Rashi lived at a time when a degenerate medieval distortion of Christianity was practiced. He wanted to preserve the Jewish people from accepting such a faith and, although his intentions were sincere, other prominent Jewish rabbis and leaders realized the inconsistencies of Rashi's interpretation. They presented a threefold objection to his innovation. First, they showed the consensus of ancient opinion. Secondly, they pointed out that the text is in the singular. Thirdly, they noted verse eight. This verse presented an insurmountable difficulty to those who interpreted this passage as referring to Israel. It reads:

He was taken away from rule and from judgment; and his life who shall recount? for he was cut off out of the land of the living; through the transgressions of my people was he stricken.

Were the Jewish people, God forbid, ever cut off out of the land of the living? No! In Jeremiah 31:35-37, God promised that we will exist forever. We are proud that Am Yisrael Chai—"The people of Israel are much alive." Likewise, it is impossible to say that Israel suffered for the transgressions of "my people," which clearly means Isaiah's people. Surely Isaiah's people are not the Gentiles, but the Jews.

Moshe Kohen, a 15th-century rabbi in Spain, explains the section:

This passage, the commentators explain, speaks of the captivity of Israel, although the singular number is used in it throughout. Others have supposed it to mean the just in this present world, who are crushed and oppressed now…but these too, for the same reason, by altering the number, distort the verses from their natural meaning. And then it seemed to me that…having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined "after the stubbornness of their own hearts," and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah.**

For the same reason, Rabbi Moshe Alsheikh, Rabbi of Safed, late 16th century, points out this fact saying:

I may remark, then, that our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah.**
Much to the point is the commentary of the great Jewish educator, Herz Homberg (1749-1841), who says:

According to the opinion of Rashi and Ibn Ezra, it relates to Israel at the end of their captivity. But if so, what can be the meaning of the passage, "He was wounded for our transgressions"? Who was wounded? Who are the transgressors? Who carried out the sickness and bare the pain? The fact is that it refers to the King Messiah.

One of our greatest Jewish religious poets, Eliezer HaKalir, paraphrased this chapter in the 9th century into rhyme and metric poetry. It is recited in the Yom Kippur prayer of Kether:

Messiah, our righteousness, hath turned from us: we are in terror and there is none to justify us! Our Iniquities and the yoke of our transgressions He did bear for He was wounded for our transgressions: He carries our sins upon His shoulders, that we may find forgiveness for our iniquities and by His stripes we are healed.

The words of the prophet Isaiah are words of hope. We have a glorious future and an abundant present if we appropriate the salvation made possible by the One who "was wounded through our transgressions and bruised through our iniquities." - Rachmiel Frydland

[Goat]

Did you know that Hillel 2 said in Sandrehdrin 99a that
The messiah won't come, since they already enjoyed him in the days of Hezikel?

And through out all the talmudic discussion about the messiah, not one of the rabbi's thinks the messiah was Jesus?

I see you didn't answer my questions. Nor could you answer the objections to Israel being the Servant in Isaiah 53.

But who is this Servant?

"Our ancient commentators with one accord noted that the context clearly speaks of God's Anointed One, the Messiah. The Aramaic translation of this chapter, ascribed to Rabbi Jonathan ben Uzziel, a disciple of Hillel who lived early in the second century C.E., begins with the simple and worthy words:

Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong: as the house of Israel looked to him through many days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples, and their complexion beyond the sons of men. (Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 53, ad Iocum)

We find the same interpretation in the Babylonian Talmud:

The Messiah—what is his name?…The Rabbis say, the leprous one; those of the house of Rabbi say, the sick one, as it is said, "Surely he hath borne our sicknesses." (Sanhedrin 98b)
Similarly, in the Midrash Rabbah, in an explanation of Ruth 2:14:

He is speaking of the King Messiah: "Come hither" draw near to the throne "and dip thy morsel in the vinegar," this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, "But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities."

In the same manner also in a later midrash, the Midrash Tanhuma, parasha Toldot, end of section, it says:

"Who art thou, O great mountain?" (Zechariah 4:7) This refers to the King Messiah. And why does he call him the "great mountain?" Because he is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, "My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly." He will be higher than Abraham who said, "I raise high my hand unto the Lord" (Gen. 14:22), lifted up above Moses, to whom it is said, "Lift it up into thy bosom" (Numbers 11:12), loftier than the ministering angels, of whom it is written, "Their wheels were lofty and terrible" (Ezekiel 1:18). And out of whom does he come forth? Out of David.

These are a few of the ancient interpretations attributing this chapter to the suffering and exalted Messiah.


Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Itzchaki, 1040-1105) and some of the later rabbis, though, interpreted the passage as referring to Israel. They knew that the older interpretations referred it to Messiah. However, Rashi lived at a time when a degenerate medieval distortion of Christianity was practiced. He wanted to preserve the Jewish people from accepting such a faith and, although his intentions were sincere, other prominent Jewish rabbis and leaders realized the inconsistencies of Rashi's interpretation. They presented a threefold objection to his innovation. First, they showed the consensus of ancient opinion. Secondly, they pointed out that the text is in the singular. Thirdly, they noted verse eight. This verse presented an insurmountable difficulty to those who interpreted this passage as referring to Israel. It reads:

He was taken away from rule and from judgment; and his life who shall recount? for he was cut off out of the land of the living; through the transgressions of my people was he stricken.

Were the Jewish people, God forbid, ever cut off out of the land of the living? No! In Jeremiah 31:35-37, God promised that we will exist forever. We are proud that Am Yisrael Chai—"The people of Israel are much alive." Likewise, it is impossible to say that Israel suffered for the transgressions of "my people," which clearly means Isaiah's people. Surely Isaiah's people are not the Gentiles, but the Jews.

Moshe Kohen, a 15th-century rabbi in Spain, explains the section:

This passage, the commentators explain, speaks of the captivity of Israel, although the singular number is used in it throughout. Others have supposed it to mean the just in this present world, who are crushed and oppressed now…but these too, for the same reason, by altering the number, distort the verses from their natural meaning. And then it seemed to me that…having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined "after the stubbornness of their own hearts," and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah.**

For the same reason, Rabbi Moshe Alsheikh, Rabbi of Safed, late 16th century, points out this fact saying:

I may remark, then, that our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah.**
Much to the point is the commentary of the great Jewish educator, Herz Homberg (1749-1841), who says:

According to the opinion of Rashi and Ibn Ezra, it relates to Israel at the end of their captivity. But if so, what can be the meaning of the passage, "He was wounded for our transgressions"? Who was wounded? Who are the transgressors? Who carried out the sickness and bare the pain? The fact is that it refers to the King Messiah.

One of our greatest Jewish religious poets, Eliezer HaKalir, paraphrased this chapter in the 9th century into rhyme and metric poetry. It is recited in the Yom Kippur prayer of Kether:

Messiah, our righteousness, hath turned from us: we are in terror and there is none to justify us! Our Iniquities and the yoke of our transgressions He did bear for He was wounded for our transgressions: He carries our sins upon His shoulders, that we may find forgiveness for our iniquities and by His stripes we are healed.

The words of the prophet Isaiah are words of hope. We have a glorious future and an abundant present if we appropriate the salvation made possible by the One who "was wounded through our transgressions and bruised through our iniquities." - Rachmiel Frydland

It seems to me you are not talking about Original Sin here.

This belongs in another thread. However, I will note that it seems that the sources which you are copying are using this technique known as 'quote mining'. They are taking
words out of context, in isolation from everything else.

For example.. your source quotes Sanhedrin 98b, yet only
quotes a single line, out of context, in isolation? Why is that? What is wrong with looking at a whole passage?

Let us get back to Psalm 51:5. The sum total of your argument was 'I don't buy that'. Not a very good argument, no??

So, why don't you tell us, in your own words (something you seem to have diffiuclty with), why you don't 'buy' that?
How about looking at the Psalm, and showing us , using the words of the Psalm, why it should be made universal, rather than just Davids feelings about himself? Let us, in this thread, talk about original sin, OK? You brought up
Psalm 51:5. So, using the words both before and after, why should that be considered 'original sin'.

And maybe, just so we are not talking past each other, you can give a good definition of what YOU think original sin is?

I have heard many Christians say that original sin is the 'stain of sin' that we inherit from our parents. I have also known other Christians how have a milder version of it.

What is your definition of "Original Sin"? And how does
the entirety of "Psalm 51" show this, and show that this guilt should be considered 'universal'.

[Easyrider]

However, I will note that it seems that the sources which you are copying are using this technique known as 'quote mining'. They are taking words out of context, in isolation from everything else.

Nonsense. They get to the heart of the matter. The vast majority specifically refer to the Messiah in relation to Isaiah 53, which is the key point.

Let us get back to Psalm 51:5. The sum total of your argument was 'I don't buy that'. Not a very good argument, no??

So, why don't you tell us, in your own words (something you seem to have diffiuclty with), why you don't 'buy' that?

Because your view doesn't match up with what was written in 51:5.

How about looking at the Psalm, and showing us , using the words of the Psalm, why it should be made universal, rather than just Davids feelings about himself?

Now that's a fair question. However, David was considered a prophet, so the turnabout question is, How about looking at the Psalm, and showing us , using the words of the Psalm, why it should be just construed as personal rather than universal? If it was true for one man that he was sinful from conception, then there's something going on that folks need to pay attention to.

And maybe, just so we are not talking past each other, you can give a good definition of what YOU think original sin is?

I have heard many Christians say that original sin is the 'stain of sin' that we inherit from our parents. I have also known other Christians how have a milder version of it.

What is your definition of "Original Sin"?

In Christian theology, the inherited condition of a propensity to sin that marks all humans as a result of Adam's fall / first act of disobedience.

A thought for you: Is there a normal human being on earth who doesn't have something in their conscience that testifies about them doing something wrong, self-serving, or sinful in their lives? Is there someone around who is claiming that they've always been perfect? I'd like to know who. And if not, then there's something going on in the human race that matches up real well with what we find in Scripture. And this has been going on for a long, long time.

[Goat]

Because your view doesn't match up with what was written in 51:5.

In what way? Shall we look at the commentary of a Jewish professor about Psalm 51?

How about looking at the Psalm, and showing us , using the words of the Psalm, why it should be made universal, rather than just Davids feelings about himself?

Now that's a fair question. However, David was considered a prophet, so the turnabout question is, How about looking at the Psalm, and showing us , using the words of the Psalm, why it should be just construed as personal rather than universal? If it was true for one man that he was sinful from conception, then there's something going on that folks need to pay attention to.

Why do you think David was considered a prophet?? David was considered a KING, not a prophet.

And maybe, just so we are not talking past each other, you can give a good definition of what YOU think original sin is?

I have heard many Christians say that original sin is the 'stain of sin' that we inherit from our parents. I have also known other Christians how have a milder version of it.

What is your definition of "Original Sin"?

In Christian theology, the inherited condition of a propensity to sin that marks all humans as a result of Adam's fall / first act of disobedience.

A thought for you: Is there a normal human being on earth who doesn't have something in their conscience that testifies about them doing something wrong, self-serving, or sinful in their lives? Is there someone around who is claiming that they've always been perfect? I'd like to know who. And if not, then there's something going on in the human race that matches up real well with what we find in Scripture. And this has been going on for a long, long time.

So, you say that it is the tendancy to sin rather than a stain of sin.

Tell me, do you view man as inherently evil, or inherently good?

[Easyrider]

Because your view doesn't match up with what was written in 51:5.

In what way? Shall we look at the commentary of a Jewish professor about Psalm 51?

Don't need more denials. The Word of God says all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.

Why do you think David was considered a prophet?? David was considered a KING, not a prophet.

He was both.

David was not merely king and ruler, he was also a prophet. "The spirit of the Lord hath spoken by me and his word by my tongue" (2 Samuel 23:2) is a direct statement of prophetic inspiration in the poem there recorded. St. Peter tells us that he was a prophet (Acts 2:30). His prophecies are embodied in the Psalms he composed that are literally Messianic and in "David's last words" (2 Samuel 23). The literal character of these Messianic Psalms is indicated in the New Testament. They refer to the suffering, the persecution, and the triumphant deliverance of Christ, or to the prerogatives conferred on Him by the Father. In addition to these his direct prophecies, David himself has always been regarded as a type of the Messias. In this the Church has but followed the teaching of the Old Testament Prophets. The Messias was to be the great theocratic king; David, the ancestor of the Messias, was a king according to God's own heart. His qualities and his very name are attributed to the Messias. Incidents in the life of David are regarded by the Fathers as foreshadowing the life of Christ; Bethlehem is the birthplace of both; the shepherd life of David points out Christ, the Good Shepherd; the five stones chosen to slay Goliath are typical of the five wounds; the betrayal by his trusted counsellor, Achitophel, and the passage over the Cedron remind us of Christ's Sacred Passion. Many of the Davidic Psalms, as we learn from the New Testament, are clearly typical of the future Messias. (newadvent.org)

Now back to what I presented earlier:

Is there a normal human being on earth who doesn't have something in their conscience that testifies about them doing something wrong, self-serving, or sinful in their lives? Is there someone around who is claiming that they've always been perfect? I'd like to know who. And if not, then there's something going on in the human race that matches up real well with what we find in Scripture. And this has been going on for a long, long time.

Do you deny this? Does your own conscience bear witness to wrongdoings on your part?

[Goat]

Don't need more denials. The Word of God says all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.

That does not explain why you feel the words 'I ,ME, MINE' refer to all of man, rather than just one person.

Why do you think David was considered a prophet?? David was considered a KING, not a prophet.

He was both.

David was not merely king and ruler, he was also a prophet. "The spirit of the Lord hath spoken by me and his word by my tongue" (2 Samuel 23:2) is a direct statement of prophetic inspiration in the poem there recorded. St. Peter tells us that he was a prophet (Acts 2:30). His prophecies are embodied in the Psalms he composed that are literally Messianic and in "David's last words" (2 Samuel 23). The literal character of these Messianic Psalms is indicated in the New Testament. They refer to the suffering, the persecution, and the triumphant deliverance of Christ, or to the prerogatives conferred on Him by the Father. In addition to these his direct prophecies, David himself has always been regarded as a type of the Messias. In this the Church has but followed the teaching of the Old Testament Prophets. The Messias was to be the great theocratic king; David, the ancestor of the Messias, was a king according to God's own heart. His qualities and his very name are attributed to the Messias. Incidents in the life of David are regarded by the Fathers as foreshadowing the life of Christ; Bethlehem is the birthplace of both; the shepherd life of David points out Christ, the Good Shepherd; the five stones chosen to slay Goliath are typical of the five wounds; the betrayal by his trusted counsellor, Achitophel, and the passage over the Cedron remind us of Christ's Sacred Passion. Many of the Davidic Psalms, as we learn from the New Testament, are clearly typical of the future Messias. (newadvent.org)

Well, samual was a prophet. David is not. Do you ever argue anything in your own words?

The "messiah' is not a prophet. The Jewish expectation for the 'Messiah' is a human being that is the direct descendant
through the unbroken male line from David, through Solomon. He is to restore the kingdom of Israel, and bring the Jews back from the Diaspora.

So, David does not meet the qualifications for 'prophet'.

All else you say is irrelevant.

So, tell me again, why is I, ME, MY not only one person, but rather everyone? You made a claim, then when I try to get an answer, you go off on a tangent. Deal with the question, and not a bunch of words from a web site that is not dealing with the issue.

[Scrotum]

A thought for you: Is there a normal human being on earth who doesn't have something in their conscience that testifies about them doing something wrong, self-serving, or sinful in their lives? Is there someone around who is claiming that they've always been perfect? I'd like to know who. And if not, then there's something going on in the human race that matches up real well with what we find in Scripture. And this has been going on for a long, long time.

A thought for YOU:

The "sins" of the Bible relates to things NATURAL for a human to do. Have you ever thought about that? In practice, it says its sinnful to exist, be human, be alive at all.

And this is of course what you dont get. It could say "YOU SHALL NOT WALK ON TWO LEGS", and obviously, all healthy Homo Sapien Sapiens do, why? Because its our natural way to walk. The same goes for the Biblical Sins, (this was a simile).

[Goat]

A thought for you: Is there a normal human being on earth who doesn't have something in their conscience that testifies about them doing something wrong, self-serving, or sinful in their lives? Is there someone around who is claiming that they've always been perfect? I'd like to know who. And if not, then there's something going on in the human race that matches up real well with what we find in Scripture. And this has been going on for a long, long time.

A thought for YOU:

The "sins" of the Bible relates to things NATURAL for a human to do. Have you ever thought about that? In practice, it says its sinnful to exist, be human, be alive at all.

And this is of course what you dont get. It could say "YOU SHALL NOT WALK ON TWO LEGS", and obviously, all healthy Homo Sapien Sapiens do, why? Because its our natural way to walk. The same goes for the Biblical Sins, (this was a simile).

Which, of course, brings up another question.

What is sin , in the context that it is being talked about here. There seems to be so many different ideas about what 'sin' is.

Maybe we should try to understand what the other person's definitoin of 'sin' is??