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.
The OP is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of Original Sin. Adams 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.
Further, Adams sin was not merely eating forbidden fruit, but rather thinking he knew better than God, that his wisdom was better than Gods, resulting in his disobedience of God. We (every single one of us) are guilty of this same thing in at least (seemingly) small and insignificant ways every single day many times over " Christians included; we are no better than any other person. The point being, each of us is guilty of our own particular sin (and lots and lots of it; it is our very nature) and deserving of Gods wrath.
Again, its not really that we are also guilty of the sin that Adam committed, but rather that we have the same sinful nature that he took upon himself when he sinned. As his offspring, all humans, upon conception/birth, have inherited this sinful nature (and will until Jesus comes back and sets things right again). Thus all human beings are in need of Christ and the redemption that is available through Him and because of His work on the cross.
God does not create evil people, or create sinners. Rather, He redeems them, by laying down His life for them. There is no greater love; greater love has no one than he who lays his life down for his friends.
Now, as for DNA I think OWH means DNA in the figurative sense. And if so, thats a good way to think of it.
onewithhim: May I say that Jesus' teachings are all there for us to read, in the Bible as we have it.
William: The Bible clearly say's otherwise. The Bible say's that what we have in the bible is simply a tiny amount of what Jesus taught, and that he did not teach his daily followers through the device of parables and that there are secrets which are not available from general reading of the Bible.
The bible writers would not have mentioned this if it were not something which should be taken into consideration by those wanting to know The Truth.
onewithhim: He explained who he is, his relationship to the Father, that the Father is the only true God, what we must do to be saved from the onslaught of sin and death, and more. I can't imagine anything that he said to his disciples in private would contradict any of that.
William: If that were the case, he would not have needed to teach his disciples anything else other than what he said in public, and it would not have needed to be said that what taught in private was so great in comparison, that it was supposed by one biblical author that the information couldn't be contained in the world, by all the books.
It may not be a matter of contradicting but of moving deeper into the mysteries - like those of The Secrets of The Father Kingdom. It might show that those who prefer not to, have no way of knowing, and thus are not qualified to give opinion on such, or to make judgments regarding such.
One book which is called 'The Word of GOD' by its followers...(A title which only belongs to Jesus) should not be given such status, even though words attributed to Jesus have found their way into it.
Main point being, that there may well be many books on many Metaphysical subjects which Jesus may have influenced and/or understood as true, and I would not be so sure as to believe that everything in the Bible, Jesus would agree with and there is no command to prompt me to believe such anyway.
First of all, the Bible does not say that Jesus taught other things to his disciples, other than what is in the Bible. Where do you get that idea?
Are you thinking of John 21:25? You'll notice that it says that Jesus DID many other things. That is very different from him teaching other things. There is no proof that he taught other things than what we have in the Bible.
The idea of original sin is nonsense. Because someone else disobeyed it means that we inherited their stupidity? If I were Eve I wouldnt have been enticed by the serpent. Well, perhaps enticed but I wouldn't have done what God said not to do.
If indeed we inherited original sin and incapable if doing good that would mean Cain and Able were the first infected. Able did good in the eyes of God. Cain not so good.
Now if we didnt have the power to resist evil why would God say this to Cain:
"And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." ~ God /Genesis 4
Avoice, I don't think that people understand just what happened back then when Adam disobeyed God. A&E were certainly stupid, but they were not retarded or ignorant. They deliberately chose[i/] to resist God's wishes for them to do, and, in effect, gave Him the finger. Maybe you or I would not disobey God, but they wanted to.
Now, why do you say that they became "incapable of doing good"? It doesn't say that in the Bible. They were no longer perfect, but they certainly could still CHOOSE to be good or bad. You demonstrated this yourself by what you posted about Cain and Abel. Abel CHOSE to be good, and Cain CHOSE to be bad.
PinSeeker wrote:
The OP is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of Original Sin. Adams 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.
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.
Last edited by AgnosticBoy on Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
onewithhim: First of all, the Bible does not say that Jesus taught other things to his disciples, other than what is in the Bible. Where do you get that idea?
William: John told me.
onewithhim: Are you thinking of John 21:25? You'll notice that it says that Jesus DID many other things.
William: Yep. That is very important to note. This would include every action Jesus performed, whether teaching, healing, meeting and greeting, taking individuals into the Metaphysical Universe, etc et al.
onewithhim: That is very different from him teaching other things.
William: Are you claiming that 'teaching' was not something that Jesus DID? If so, I guess our discussion can end right here then.
onewithhim: There is no proof that he taught other things than what we have in the Bible.
William: That the Disciples were specific as to what they chose to write down and share with the world through the Bible, is not evidence that they shared everything Jesus had taught them. Indeed, that is specifically why we must conclude that with or without the evidence, there is much we can learn which the Bible does not reveal.
That s why our relationship with Jesus can only be WITH the actual Jesus, not any other medium people may claim to be "the Word of GOD", if indeed the individual wants to know firsthand, The knowledge of the Mysteries of The Kingdom of Heaven
It wouldnt matter how immaculate she was. Being born of a virgin was not prophesied about the messiah. Nor his mothers' virginity. Jesus could be born on Mars to a virgin what difference would it make? none
