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.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 36 by JehovahsWitness]

Do you have any scriptural support of "limbo"?

I already mentioned limbo was not an official Church teaching. The concept of limbo affirms that getting to heaven is only possible via the salvation of Jesus Christ. The concept of limbo is not spelled out in Scripture, but is seen as implicit in various references. We know from Scripture that salvation comes by way of Christ. We know the importance and significance of Baptism. We know that God is all loving, merciful, and just. We know Scripture has mentioned places that are neither heaven nor hell, rather some kind of in between. Therefore, it is completely in keeping with Scripture to consider a view like limbo. The idea stresses hope, certainly a Christian concept.

The Church has officially defined the doctrine on Original Sin, however has not defined the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, allowing Christians to accept or reject theories like limbo.

Again, I am curious what issues you would have with something like limbo? And please dont say it is unscriptural, because like I already mentioned no where in Scripture itself does it say we are only to take authority from Scripture. Scripture itself actually says the opposite and Scripture itself describes the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth.

* If you believe in "limbo" but don't know what It is, or how to define it, dont worry I understand.

This comment comes across as condescending. I do know what limbo is and how it is defined, as I already have explained such. If you are still unclear, just ask me to continue to try to explain it to you.

[AgnosticBoy]

onewithhim said..

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.

...

I agree with a lot of your good points. I am only disagreeing with those who say that all mankind is guilty because of the inherited nature from Adam & Eve as opposed to an actual act. My baby example would show that there's a problem with that view. You add on 'cognizance' as a factor. So that would mean that in some cases, inherited nature does not make everyone guilty.

[myth-one.com]

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.

Here is where God modified mankind's DNA:

And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. (Genesis 6:3)

Sometime around 1975-1980, scientists concluded that human beings could live to a maximum of one hundred and twenty years of age. It was discovered that shortly before reaching one hundred and twenty the process that causes body cells to reproduce fails. The cells then die as does the person.

Scientists have now discovered what causes this cell division process to halt around the age of one hundred and twenty years. They believe it is caused by what they call telomeres. This they believe is the key to the human life cycle.

Telomeres are repeating DNA strings (TTAGGG) that cap chromosomes. Each time a cell divides its telomeres become shorter. When they reach a preset length the cell ceases to divide, ages, and dies.

Independently, others came up with exactly the same number three thousand years ago!

He "bought us back" with the sacrifice of his own physical body.

That isn't the way it works.

Is your sin "Original"?

The first sin I ever committed was my original sin.

But I cannot now remember what it was.

[onewithhim]

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.

But we had no eternal spirit placed within us when we began to exist. That was the big lie that Satan inflicted upon mankind. He said to Eve, "You certainly will not die!" God did not give us an eternal spirit that lives on after our body dies. Didn't you say so yourself that it doesn't make sense that a person who goes to hell-fire after his body dies would still be LIVING, and that would go against the pronouncement by God that the punishment for sin is DEATH?

Where in the Bible does it say that man has an "eternal entity" within himself?

The spirit within man is simply the force from God that keeps that person alive. God does so with his Holy Spirit. When the spirit leaves a person after they die, that is the LIFE-FORCE "returning" to God which had kept that person alive. It is the same life-force that operates on everything created. The same life-force that keeps animals alive, and plants. When they die, the spirit, in effect, leaves them.

That is what Ecclesiastes 12:7 is about....."The spirit returns to the true God who gave it." "Spirit" means the LIFE-FORCE that keeps humans (and animals and plants) alive.


What are your thoughts on Ecclesiastes 3:19,20? I think that these verses bear out my explanation of "spirit."

"There is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit....All are going to the same place. They all come from dust, and they all are returning to dust."

[onewithhim]

onewithhim said..

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.

...

I agree with a lot of your good points. I am only disagreeing with those who say that all mankind is guilty because of the inherited nature from Adam & Eve as opposed to an actual act. My baby example would show that there's a problem with that view. You add on 'cognizance' as a factor. So that would mean that in some cases, inherited nature does not make everyone guilty.

That's right.....guilty to the point of having to die. A baby is innocent of having actually committed any sin. He would not die the eternal death of the wicked. He is covered under Christ's loving sacrifice. So are adults who admit that they sin and need help, because we are prone to sin. Sometimes we don't even realize it when we sin.

There is a different kind of sin when we talk about DELIBERATE sin, like a person committing fornication or murder when the person knows he is doing a serious wrong, and he PRACTICES the sin, continually. Unless he is sincerely sorry for these serious sins, Christ's sacrifice does not cover those sins.(Hebrews 10:26)

So: two kinds of sin: INHERITED and DELIBERATE

We can't help the inherited kind; we can help the deliberate kind. John touches on this at I John 5:16-18.

"If anyone catches sight of his brother committing a sin that does not incur death, he will ask, and God will give life to him....There is a sin that DOES incur death. It is concerning that sin that I do not tell him to make request [because it is deliberate and willful, and done without remorse]....We know that everyone who has been born from God does not practice sin...."

[ttruscott]

God doesn't "make anybody inherit" anything. What would have been unloving is refusing to create any more humans at all.

Make means to create or to force without their assent something upon a person.

IF we are created at conception (the theory called traducianism) or at birth (the theory called creationism of the soul) and are sinners or something sinful (make up your own words, everyone else does) because we inherited sin or something sinful (make up your own words, everyone else does) from Adam then

we gave no assent to being sinful, judged to be evil and under the natural and legal consequences for being an evil person.

The fact that the theories claim we were created that way does not change the facts that this state of sinfulness was forced upon us by GOD's decision to create us this way, disgustingly evil and corrupt, leading inevitably to a life of suffering and death. By this theory of our being created on earth, no sinner chose sin from their own desires or hopes, being that way from their conception or birth.

Therefore these theories certainly do fit the depiction that our creation (which in itself we had no control over) forced us to be evil without our consent nor by our choice.

As for your suggestion that it would have been more unloving to not have made any other humans at all, this is a logical deviation called a red herring idea to change the topic so as to not have to deal with the cognitive dissonance created by the pointing out of the obvious fallacies of the theories.

A MORE LOVING theory would be:
- GOD created all people ingenuously innocent with a free will and an equal ability and opportunity to CHOOSE by their free will whether to commit to holiness or to sinfulness in GOD's sight with full teaching about what that commitment means.

- OR GOD decided that sin canNOT be inherited by birth in Adam's line but no one is credited with sin except by a free will decison to rebel against GOD or HIS plans for us by a true decision to do so, in the same way for humans that HE apparently chose for the angels, ie, no angel is ever credited to being sinful because he inherited Satan's sin.
<headshake, facepalm>

[ttruscott]

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

OF course HE can and does forgive! But why does HE have to forgive ?? is the question before us. The theories of our inheriting sin from Adam by HIS fiat decree that we 1. must be born human in Adam and not in some other state and 2. we must inherit his sin and be created as disgustingly evil and corrupt...

begs us to ask if this was done just so HE can forgive some but not all? This is a horrible idea to put on a Person we think is love incarnate and always righteous and just. Yikes....a can of worms doesn't even start to describe how blasphemous this is in the Christian context,

especially when these theories were not forced upon us because no another plausible or possible theory was available because we also have the theory of our pre-earth creation in the spirit where no one was created evil and no evil was judge except if chose by someone's free will etc etc.

I also ask: what is so awful about the theory that we were created pre-earth and after we chose to become sinful in HIS sight, we were moved, sown, into humanity (Matt 13:36-39) for the redemption of the sinful but good seed that it must be rejected in favour of the blasphemy of inherited sin???

[PinSeeker]

God doesn't "make anybody inherit" anything. What would have been unloving is refusing to create any more humans at all.

Make means to create or to force without their assent something upon a person.

IF we are created at conception (the theory called traducianism) or at birth (the theory called creationism of the soul) and are sinners or something sinful (make up your own words, everyone else does) because we inherited sin or something sinful (make up your own words, everyone else does) from Adam then

we gave no assent to being sinful, judged to be evil and under the natural and legal consequences for being an evil person.

The fact that the theories claim we were created that way does not change the facts that this state of sinfulness was forced upon us by GOD's decision to create us this way, disgustingly evil and corrupt, leading inevitably to a life of suffering and death. By this theory of our being created on earth, no sinner chose sin from their own desires or hopes, being that way from their conception or birth.

Therefore these theories certainly do fit the depiction that our creation (which in itself we had no control over) forced us to be evil without our consent nor by our choice.

As for your suggestion that it would have been more unloving to not have made any other humans at all, this is a logical deviation called a red herring idea to change the topic so as to not have to deal with the cognitive dissonance created by the pointing out of the obvious fallacies of the theories.

A MORE LOVING theory would be:
- GOD created all people ingenuously innocent with a free will and an equal ability and opportunity to CHOOSE by their free will whether to commit to holiness or to sinfulness in GOD's sight with full teaching about what that commitment means.

- OR GOD decided that sin canNOT be inherited by birth in Adam's line but no one is credited with sin except by a free will decison to rebel against GOD or HIS plans for us by a true decision to do so, in the same way for humans that HE apparently chose for the angels, ie, no angel is ever credited to being sinful because he inherited Satan's sin.
<headshake, facepalm>

LOL! God chose to create each and every one of us (thus giving us physical life) despite the state, or condition, each one of us would be born into (spiritual death) because of Adam's sin and the resulting imputation of his unrighteousness. This is love.

Since we have this physical life, we all are given and thus have the opportunity to be redeemed by God and thus be brought from this spiritual death to spiritual and ultimately eternal, physical life. And this is possible only because of the atonement of Jesus, God the Son, and the appeasement of the wrath of God the Father on our behalf and the resulting imputation of His righteousness. This also is love, but a much greater love.

[PinSeeker]

I also ask: what is so awful about the theory that we were created pre-earth and after we chose to become sinful in HIS sight, we were moved, sown, into humanity (Matt 13:36-39) for the redemption of the sinful but good seed that it must be rejected in favour of the blasphemy of inherited sin???

Well I wouldn't use the term "awful." But it's not biblical in any sense.

As I've said many times, we don't "inherit Adam's sin." We inherit his sinful state -- that of spiritual death.

In answer to brian's question, yes, God can forgive, but He cannot compromise His justice; someone still has to pay the wages of that sin. Fortunately, Someone worthy to do that has done it on our behalf -- God Himself, in the form of Jesus, God the Son -- so that God the Father's justice is then satisfied and He can forgive us and thus redeem us to Him. This is a great love, to put it mildly.

So then the question becomes, do we accept that or not? Will we love back?

[William]

onewithhim: 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.

onewithhim: But we had no eternal spirit placed within us when we began to exist.

William: This is where it is important to be aware of who we are.
Your argument implies we are the container (human form.) and that no eternal spirit has entered the container that we are.
Clearly the container is empty and lifeless without the Eternal Entity indwelling it.

Elohim: Breathe in - breathe out

onewithhim: That was the big lie that Satan inflicted upon mankind. He said to Eve, "You certainly will not die!"

William: The Serpent knew things the Humans did not know of themselves.

onewithhim: God did not give us an eternal spirit that lives on after our body dies.

William: According to the story, GOD gave the human instrument (body) an eternal occupant (breath of GOD). The problem with that is it is easy for the Eternal occupant to think of itself as the human body.
If we all understood intimately that we were of GOD - as Jesus messaged - rather than merely a body which would die and be no more - as materialists believe - we would probably behave very differently.

onewithhim: Didn't you say so yourself that it doesn't make sense that a person who goes to hell-fire after his body dies would still be LIVING, and that would go against the pronouncement by God that the punishment for sin is DEATH?

William: No.
The only death that occurs is the death of biological instruments. Eternal entities cannot die.
What I say is that the eternal entity which has been influenced by its incarceration within human form and knows not that it is an eternal entity, but thinks itself as a finite being - thinks of itself as the experience the being has, rather than that which is having the experience - carries the total of its human experience into the Metaphysical Universe once the body it occupied and believed itself to be, dies.

onewithhim: Where in the Bible does it say that man has an "eternal entity" within himself?

William: As I explained, 'man' as you understand yourself, is self identifying with the flesh/form/body. We are to identify as Spirit, because that is really what we are.
We are all 'sons' of GOD...not the flesh devices used to experience physical reality.
Think of the human body like a space-suit. it enables the astronaut to explore space.
It is the same with the human instrument. The eternal entity you are, uses it to explore the physical universe...(experience a life as being human).

onewithhim: The spirit within man is simply the force from God that keeps that person alive.

William: Again, you conflate the flesh with the 'person'. The flesh is the container for the person to experience through.
I don't argue that humans generally self identify with/as being the container. My argument is how this is problematic in terms of human belief systems and the Metaphysical Universe.
Once the eternal entity (spirit) exits the human experience, it takes with it the image of said experience through the beliefs it created and these are projected into the Metaphysical Universe, and experienced as real.

onewithhim: God does so with his Holy Spirit. When the spirit leaves a person after they die, that is the LIFE-FORCE "returning" to God which had kept that person alive. It is the same life-force that operates on everything created. The same life-force that keeps animals alive, and plants. When they die, the spirit, in effect, leaves them.

William: In a sense what happens is that one 'hitches a ride' with the Holy Spirit who - for the most part - resides and works within the Metaphysical Universe.
Those who connect with the Holy Spirit enable this to be able to happen.
In effect it is the individual reassessing his/her/their self image, ascertaining that they are actually an eternal being which was placed into the environment of the Physical Universe.

Someone:The spirit returns to the true God who gave it

onewithhim: "Spirit" means the LIFE-FORCE that keeps humans (and animals and plants) alive.

William:The Spirit also gathers the Data of Experience of the individuate Forced Life. The Spirit is the recipent and owner of that data.
True, we are not really that data, even though we experienced being so.
Rather, we are The Spirit which without, the data would never have had the opportunity of being created.
Effectively, 'we' are that which created this Physical Universe, but at the time, we were God and Satan.
This because, we are informed that there was a battle in the Metaphysical Universe way before the Physical Universe was created in order to fight the same battle on a different board.

onewithhim: What are your thoughts on Ecclesiastes 3:19,20? I think that these verses bear out my explanation of "spirit."

Someone:"There is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit....All are going to the same place. They all come from dust, and they all are returning to dust."

William: From memory, the writer seemed depressed, like the spirit had up and left him...I prefer the writing of David...maybe it is time to have another read and see how I feel about it now...

I think if people want to adopt the same attitude as the writer, and believe the same - effectively that they are data rather than data collector, that is their prerogative.
Did the writer of Ecclesiastes mention anything about being risen from that death?

onewithhim:

William: