Is your sin "Original"?

[polonius]

Another bible fiction which became rather pervasive in Christianity is the claim of the "stain" of Original Sin (the first sin of Adam) of which we all bear the guilt even though we were born thousand of years after it was committed.

Because we all have this "stain," a "merciful God"(?) damns the unbaptized to spend eternity suffering in hell even infants who die. Or so the story goes.

Later on it was agreed that this was rather harsh, so the unbaptized not guilty of any serious sin were consigned to 'Limbo" a state of "natural happiness" in which, however, the person is denied the beatific vision of God which was important for some reason.

Many Catholics and Protestants haven't kept up so don't realize that Pope Francis abolished it obviously because it was realized that it was a fiction.

However, the full effect of this hasn't been felt yet. The Catholic Church's "doctrine" of Mary's Immaculate Conception is also void if there is no Original Sin to begin with.

[onewithhim]

onewithhim said
"Well, I do think of literal DNA being involved. How else would Adam's offspring inherit his fallen nature?"


I agree with PinSeeker's explanation in terms of it being biblically based. However, I see problems with it in that even inherited genes do not fully determine behavior. In other words, even if there is a "sin" gene, that doesn't necessarily mean we will sin and that's because environment and cognitive factors also play a role in determining our behavior. Imagine that a newborn baby dies at day one or it dies in the womb (a fetal death). A baby in this situation could not "sin" so I fail to see it's guilt.

Because of this I doubt that "inheritance" alone would be the basis to condemn all of humanity.

Inherited genes do not always determine behavior. In the case of A&E, however, their genes were undoubtedly adjusted after they rebelled. They were created perfect (Deuteronomy 32:4) with nothing wrong with their DNA, so that they had the privilege of living forever (as long as they obeyed God). When they disobeyed, they had the privilege of unending life taken from them and they had to die. They wouldn't die if their DNA was still perfect, would they? God must have adjusted their molecular instructions so that they would eventually die.

This is what I mean by saying that our DNA determines whether or not we live forever or we die. God created DNA to allow humans to live and not die. Now we have DNA that we inherited from our ancestors, going all the way back to Adam, so we can't escape death.

That is the whole reason Jesus came to the earth. He "bought us back" with the sacrifice of his own physical body.

Babies are not cognizant of what they are doing, so they would not be condemned, even though they inherit Adam's death-dealing DNA.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 10 by Tcg]

Yeah...when did God say their perfection was gone?

When a car blows its transmission it's not perfect anymore, is it? It has changed drastically from the time it was on the showroom floor. So it stands to reason that when A&E rebelled, they were not perfect anymore. God told them they would die if they disobeyed. When they disobeyed they started to die, as God had warned them. He didn't have to say that their perfection was gone. It was obvious.

[William]

@

onewithhim:When a car blows its transmission it's not perfect anymore, is it? It has changed drastically from the time it was on the showroom floor. So it stands to reason that when A&E rebelled, they were not perfect anymore. God told them they would die if they disobeyed. When they disobeyed they started to die, as God had warned them. He didn't have to say that their perfection was gone. It was obvious.

William: It might be important to understand that the containers (human bodies) were perfect but the spirit within it was then able to be imperfect through the perfect body.
Certainly the story does imply as much.
The body is that which dies...perhaps the spirit is the reason for this...it would not pay to place an Eternal Entity into a form which could not eventually decay enough for the Eternal Entity to be released from it.
The whole point of being an Eternal Entity, is that one is never permanently trapped in only one experience. Such would simply go against the nature of the Eternal Entity and naturally cause problems.

[kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

When I read the story of the fall, I walk away with the thought that there was really no accrual event that took place outside of a self imposed seperation from God by Adam and Company. No fall, no sin, no real seperation, just the perception of one.

The serpent appeals to Eves ego. Why be content with what God has given you. There is more to be had. More power, more knowledge. Desire these things, take these things, you deserve these things.
So they leave the perfect path of God and eat.
Doubt is created. Guilt is created, seperation has begun.
This pain causes them to want to hide, the innocents of being naked is no more. Now its something that needs to be hidden. They are being effected by the consequences of walking off the path of God. They are no longer good enough.
God trys to lend a hand. "Where are you? Why hide?" (As if he didn't know already)
Adam shows his face and God plays it dumb, "Whats up with that fig leaf, why are hiding? Did you mess up, even after I warned you? "
Now if Adam hadnt been all hopped up on the guilt, and fear, he may have noticed that God had come a running as soon as they need his help. God was nice about it too, looking for them , asking what was wrong, allowing them the chance to explain. Seems like God wasnt commited to a course of action yet.
At this point Adam and Eve should have repented and walked back into the light of Gods love, but instead they started in with the blame and finger pointing.
Seperation had occured.
So God agrees with them, as you wish good bye but know that your choices have consequences, suddenly the dawning of fear curses their vision of life and the garden. They have bought into the curse that comes with unhealthy actions anf

[PinSeeker]

The OP is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of Original Sin. Adam’s particular guilt is not inherited by his offspring (all people), but rather his unrighteousness, his sinful nature (at conception/birth) that he took on – his spiritual death – because of the first sin. This is what Paul is saying in Romans 5. This inheritance, as his offspring, is why all the living are sinners.

You are absolutely correct.

Yes, I know I am. I'm habitually that way...

[PinSeeker]

...even inherited genes do not fully determine behavior. In other words, even if there is a "sin" gene, that doesn't necessarily mean we will sin and that's because environment and cognitive factors also play a role in determining our behavior.

I agree, but that's really not relevant. The state of the heart is what is relevant, not merely genes.

Imagine that a newborn baby dies at day one or it dies in the womb (a fetal death). A baby in this situation could not "sin" so I fail to see it's guilt. Because of this I doubt that "inheritance" alone would be the basis to condemn all of humanity.

Again, the state of the heart -- at any point in life, from conception to death -- is what is relevant, not whether any particular sin has manifested itselt (or actually been committed) outwardly or not.

[ttruscott]

The OP is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of Original Sin. Adam’s particular guilt is not inherited by his offspring (all people), but rather his unrighteousness, his sinful nature (at conception/birth) that he took on – his spiritual death – because of the first sin. This is what Paul is saying in Romans 5. This inheritance, as his offspring, is why all the living are sinners.

You are absolutely correct.

Whether we inherited his sin, his guilt or his unrighteousness or his sinful nature, this doctrine contends that GOD creates evil people by making them human and by making them inherit something sinful from Adam.

This is objectionable on a number of fronts:
1. It implies that GOD creates evil people which nothing forced HIM to do. Before each person's creation there was x amount of evil in existence, after their conception / birth there was supposedly x+1 amount of evil...an absurdity. Everyone accepts that GOD could never have made Satan evil but they readily accept that HE then made every human, including HIS Bride, evil and disgustingly corrupt.

This implies that HE only wants to marry someone who has been first totally corrupted by HIM but whom HE then healed from the corruption HE caused them so as to be a suitable Bride. Yechhh...

2. GOD is LIGHT and light destroys dark by its very essence. Light cannot create dark as in the instant it is created it would be destroyed. GOD is also love and love would ever create evil, the most unloving thing in existence. A match struck cannot fill a room with light, it is an impossibility both physically and theologically speaking of the nature of GOD.

3. This evil doctrine implies a blasphemic contradiction to HIS self revelation that HE is love and righteous in justice: there is nothing loving nor righteous nor just about creating people to suffer and die as sinners for no reason. HE created Adam innocent...there is no reason not to have created us the same way!

4. This pernicious doctrine also contradicts scripture that states clearly enough that people do NOT die for the sins of their fathers but we supposedly die in Adam's sins as testified by the death of infants who die for sin but have not yet chosen sin...
Ezekiel 18:20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. Jeremiah 31:30 Instead, each will die for his own iniquity.

THE CHILD WILL NOT SHARE THE GUILT OF THE PARENT - how much more plain can it be unless someone is brainwashed to ignore the cognitive dissonance by an unhealthy dose of doublethink!

5. This doctrine forces us to accept that the choices our sinful nature makes are true free will decisions which in any other circumstance would be rejected out of hand. A free will is free of coercion and the enslaving addiction to evil is a great coercion that cannot be overcome and to think it allows a free will is another delusion trying to desperately reconcile our being created evil with the theological need for us to have a free will.

6. There is absolutely no reason to accept such a pernicious blasphemy AS IF IT WERE THE ONLY OPTION when it is perfectly obvious another option exists. If people lived pre-earth and chose to be sinners at that time by their free will and then after the earth was created all sinners (and only sinners) were moved, sown into the world as humans, Matt 13:36-39, that this would fit the scenario for only sinners being born without any impugning of HIS righteousness nor HIS loving justice in the least.

There is no revealed attribute of GOD that this evil blasphemy does not denigrate and corrupt, forcing people to believe and propagate lies about the Most High GOD. What is so magnificently evil about our pre-conception existence that it is so off handedly rejected in favour of such a blasphemy filled doctrine as inherited sin!

[PinSeeker]

...this doctrine contends that GOD creates evil people by making them human and by making them inherit something sinful from Adam.

God doesn't "make anybody inherit" anything. What would have been unloving is refusing to create any more humans at all. He could have just thrown His "hands" up and quit. But despite the fact that Adam, by his sin, brought sin (and sinfulness) and death into the world, He doesn't "give up," because it's not in His nature to do so. Rather, because of his never-stopping, never-giving-up, always-and-forever love -- His great faithfulness -- He resolves to bring man from death to life and sets in motion His own plan of the redemption, the accomplishment of which requires the sacrifice of Himself -- in the form of Jesus, God the Son -- to accomplish.

[brianbbs67]

...this doctrine contends that GOD creates evil people by making them human and by making them inherit something sinful from Adam.

God doesn't "make anybody inherit" anything. What would have been unloving is refusing to create any more humans at all. He could have just thrown His "hands" up and quit. But despite the fact that Adam, by his sin, brought sin (and sinfulness) and death into the world, He doesn't "give up," because it's not in His nature to do so. Rather, because of his never-stopping, never-giving-up, always-and-forever love -- His great faithfulness -- He resolves to bring man from death to life and sets in motion His own plan of the redemption, the accomplishment of which requires the sacrifice of Himself -- in the form of Jesus, God the Son -- to accomplish.

Can God not forgive? Keep in mind He repents at least twice in the OT.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 35 by JehovahsWitness]

None of those scriptures support the teachings of purgatory , they don't even mention the word. . Do you have more scripture*?

Ha, ha, ha . . . these passages all support the teaching of purgatory. And as you can see there are many more passages pertaining to purgatory then say the JW paradise earth theory.

We are to read the Bible as a whole. We are also to turn to Christ’s Church and listen to her. The Bible itself tells us to heed not only that which has been written, but that which has been passed on via word of mouth and Sacred Tradition (the Church) as well. The Bible itself tells us there was much more that God desired us to know—much more to be revealed to us. I don’t understand how anyone can reconcile a, “But that specific word is not mentioned in the Bible so that understanding doesn’t apply� philosophy. Such a mode of Christianity is both unChristian and unreasonable.

*CLARIFICATION When I said "scripture" I meant the 66 books of the bible canon. I am uninterested in the books of "Wis" and "Sirach"

Wisdom and Sirach are part of the canon according to Christ’s Church. Here is a little history lesson . . .

********

The first-century Christians–including Jesus and the apostles–effectively considered these seven books canonical. They quoted from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that contained these seven books. More importantly, the deuterocanonicals are clearly alluded to in the New Testament.

Third, the canon of the entire Bible was essentially settled around the turn of the fourth century. Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains. Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419). In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on, in practice Christians accepted the Catholic Church’s decision in this matter.

By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)–and thus considering them inspired–for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.

One of the two “pillars� of the Protestant Reformation (sola scriptura or “the Bible alone�) in part states that nothing can be added to or taken away from God’s Word. History shows therefore that Protestants are guilty of violating their own doctrine.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/didnt-the-c ... -the-bible