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]

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]

[Goat]

[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??