• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Original Sin

Aberration said:
The Original Sin is defying God. I don't know of anyone who hasn't. It's the very reason we need salvation by grace.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's one interpretation. Another is that you can't sin unless you are capable of discerning good and evil, and if that is the case, the sin was not defying god and eating the fruit , since madam didn't know better, but lying about it and trying to blame eve afterward.
 
Adam was the son of god and brought original sin into existence and damned all people. Jesus the son of god who absolved all humans by dying to appease the price of original sin. The son of god was the first and last or alpha and omega.
 
RAMOSS said:
That's one interpretation. Another is that you can't sin unless you are capable of discerning good and evil, and if that is the case, the sin was not defying god and eating the fruit , since madam didn't know better, but lying about it and trying to blame eve afterward.
Click to expand...

I have actually pondered that very thing, of what was the real sin, eating the fruit, or lying about it.

Regardless though the Scripture tells us violating our own conscience is sin. If we think something is wrong and we do it anyways. So there appears to be a duality to sin. Even with that interpretation, I don't know of anyone who hasn't done something they thought was wrong.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
RAMOSS said:
That's one interpretation. Another is that you can't sin unless you are capable of discerning good and evil, and if that is the case, the sin was not defying god and eating the fruit , since madam didn't know better, but lying about it and trying to blame eve afterward.
Click to expand...

Adam was an asshole. That is why his first wife Lilith left him.
 
Aberration said:
I have actually pondered that very thing, of what was the real sin, eating the fruit, or lying about it.
Click to expand...
Neither. A creature without knowledge of good and evil is incapable of sin. The truth is, Adam never sinned
 
Fletch said:
Neither. A creature without knowledge of good and evil is incapable of sin. The truth is, Adam never sinned
Click to expand...

At least until AFTER he ate the fruit. Then, he lied about it.. and that's a sin...
 
JANFU said:
Original Sin
Are we born with this? If so why?
Click to expand...

It's part of the human condition.

JANFU said:
If yes, what did Jesus die for? Did his sacrifice not address this Sin?
Click to expand...

Yes. Jesus' death dealt with sin and death. The details of how and in what way vary depending on your particular beliefs.

Here are some of the dominant beliefs:
1. The Calvinist position typically says something along the lines of: Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient to cover all sins, but is only effective for those who are predestined for salvation.
2. The Arminian/Wesleyan view says something along the lines of: Jesus' death makes possible the salvation of all by instilling in every person "prevenient grace"; a grace that, unless resisted, will draw them towards God and lead them to salvation.
3. Universal Reconciliation teaches that Christ's death covers all sin for everyone and all will be saved.

Personally, I tend to focus on views that go beyond atonement and make sense of the totality of everything that was accomplished on the cross. Jesus died to deal with the problem of sin and evil, but not just so that some people might go to heaven after they die. He dealt with the problem of sin and evil in order to inaugurate the Kingdom of God and allow us to reclaim our genuine vocation as a royal priesthood.

JANFU said:
If a baby is not baptized and dies prior to, do they die with Original Sin?
Click to expand...

This has actually been a very hotly debated topic throughout the ages.

Most today would agree that dead infants may be (but aren't necessarily) saved. Most Calvinists, for example, would propose that those infants who were predestined for salvation are saved and those who weren't aren't, just like with adults. This would include all infants born into a Christian home and may include others who weren't. Some Calvinists go even further than that and say that all infants are predestined for salvation. On the Arminian camp, you tend to find the view that we are born with total depravity, but not condemnatory guilt (Jesus took care of that part on the cross), condemnatory guilt is the result of willful sinning which can only occur after the age of accountability.

Of course for those who believe in universal reconciliation, this isn't even an issue; everyone is saved infant or not.


There are good questions, and the fact they have been debated for centuries attests to this fact. But, I think if we find ourselves focusing too much on this, we may be missing the point. The focus of the gospel isn't to be saved so you can go to heaven when you die. The point of salvation is to empower you to enter into the kingdom of God that currently exists on Earth right now so you can take part in the work of reconciliation God is actually doing. If we find ourselves focusing on the details of what it takes to get to heaven, instead of focusing on how we can be productive members of God's kingdom right now...we missed the point of salvation.
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
Neither. A creature without knowledge of good and evil is incapable of sin. The truth is, Adam never sinned
Click to expand...

Your second sentence contradicts your first and so makes your third false.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Porkuloss said:
I'm honestly not trying to hijack the thread here, but for that "original sin" concept to work, it must be proved that we all descended from the same couple. That represents something referred to as a genetic bottleneck, and my understanding is that there is nothing to support the idea that a genetic bottleneck that small ever existed.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...doff-between-science-and-faith-and-a-contest/
Click to expand...

No hijacking at all.
We also have this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

The name "Mitochondrial Eve" alludes to biblical Eve.[10] This has led to repeated misrepresentations or misconceptions in journalistic accounts on the topic. The title of "Mitochondrial Eve" is not permanently fixed to a single individual, but rather shifts forward in time over the course of human history as maternal lineages become extinct. Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. However, by the definition of Mitochondrial Eve, her female contemporaries, though they may have descendants alive today, do not have any descendants today who descend in an unbroken female line of descent.
Click to expand...
 
RAMOSS said:
That is actually a story from the 10th century.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the two very different accounts of the creation of the first woman in the Bible were noticed much earlier. The first woman in Genesis 1:27 was created at the same tiime and in the same manner as Adam and intended to share dominion equally with him. Eve was not created until later in Genesis 2:22 in the Garden of Eden from Adam's rib and intended to serve only as his helpmeet. Nothing is said about Eve sharing dominion. I suppose that made Adam happy.
 
JohnPaul said:
Yes, but the two very different accounts of the creation of the first woman in the Bible were noticed much earlier. The first woman in Genesis 1:27 was created at the same tiime and in the same manner as Adam and intended to share dominion equally with him. Eve was not created until later in Genesis 2:22 in the Garden of Eden from Adam's rib and intended to serve only as his helpmeet. Nothing is said about Eve sharing dominion. I suppose that made Adam happy.
Click to expand...

Well, it all depends on what translation you use. The word that is typically translated as 'rib' also is translated as 'side', which, according to some intepretations, is saying that Eve was created at the same level as Adam.


Here is some Jewish commentary about the passage dealing with that very subject.

https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_adams_rib/

Indeed, it is a mistake to read the second creation story solely as a literal “surgery.” On a deeper level, it depicts the relationship between man and woman. In describing the account, Abarbanel states that Chava was not created from Adam’s foot so that he would not consider her a lowly maidservant, nor from his head so that she would lord over him. Rather, she was created from his side so that she would be equal to him.
Click to expand...
 
RAMOSS said:
At least until AFTER he ate the fruit. Then, he lied about it.. and that's a sin...
Click to expand...

The heretic Gnostics had a VERy DIFFERENT interpretation of the Garden of Eden story. The Gnostics were so horrified by the Bible God that they rejected him as a false impostor god who had created a flawed material world and trapped human souls in it for his own amusement, while the True God remained remote and pure. The serpent in the Garden of Eden was The Christos, an emanation of the True God sent to rescue the trapped human souls by giving them Divine Knowledge which the false god had denied to them.
 
RAMOSS said:
At least until AFTER he ate the fruit. Then, he lied about it.. and that's a sin...
Click to expand...

The serpent promised us if we ate the fruit, we would not die, but would become as gods. We each have a tiny spark of the True God within us, our own Inner Light, which we must nourish through many reincarnations here on earth and finally escape from this flawed material world.
 
JANFU said:
Original Sin
Are we born with this? If so why?
If yes, what did Jesus die for? Did his sacrifice not address this Sin?
If a baby is not baptized and dies prior to, do they die with Original Sin?
This is not a troll thread. I am just very, very curious as to what others believe.
My belief is we are not born with Original Sin, as Jesus died on the cross for all humanities sins.

I am far from a biblical scholar, nor am I well read in the bible, though I am Christian and believe Jesus was the Son of God.
I am sure these questions have been posed before. But if you wish to reply, that would be fine.
Thank you
Click to expand...




Original sin, yes. Both biblical and self-evident to me.

Infant Grace in Innocence until the age of accountability, which is whenever they first come under conviction of their sinfulness.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, it all depends on what translation you use. The word that is typically translated as 'rib' also is translated as 'side', which, according to some intepretations, is saying that Eve was created at the same level as Adam.


Here is some Jewish commentary about the passage dealing with that very subject.

https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_adams_rib/
Click to expand...

I know there is some dispute about the meaning of rib, and that theologians are very slippery and self-serving. In any case, Eve was the SECOND woman created.
 
JohnPaul said:
I know there is some dispute about the meaning of rib, and that theologians are very slippery and self-serving. In any case, Eve was the SECOND woman created.
Click to expand...

That wasn't part of the original story.. that was an add on a couple of thousand years later.
 
JohnPaul said:
It takes time to learn all the details God didn't choose to tell us.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was a midrash (also known as 'biblical fan fiction')
 
Goshin said:
Original sin, yes. Both biblical and self-evident to me.

Infant Grace in Innocence until the age of accountability, which is whenever they first come under conviction of their sinfulness.
Click to expand...

So your God created you to fry in hell?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
We're all born human, and that's not intrinsically evil. None of us chose to be born and we bear no responsibility for the world prior to coming into it. I'd be highly skeptical of anyone claiming to speak for god that says something as vile as this.
Click to expand...

Christians don't claim to speak for God, we believe the Bible is God speaking to us.
 
JANFU said:
Original Sin
Are we born with this? If so why?
If yes, what did Jesus die for? Did his sacrifice not address this Sin?
If a baby is not baptized and dies prior to, do they die with Original Sin?
This is not a troll thread. I am just very, very curious as to what others believe.
My belief is we are not born with Original Sin, as Jesus died on the cross for all humanities sins.

I am far from a biblical scholar, nor am I well read in the bible, though I am Christian and believe Jesus was the Son of God.
I am sure these questions have been posed before. But if you wish to reply, that would be fine.
Thank you
Click to expand...

If you would know God, be not therefore a solver of riddles.

The Gospels were all written ling after Jesus died.

The church has done pretty much a PR Job on the memory of the Savior aimed sometimes at profit, sometimes at power and sometimes at piety.

I, too, am a Christian, but not all that comfortable with ALL of the interpretations offered by the Church.

Take the comfort that you can find. Men cannot know the mind or heart of God. Life is hard enough without setting yourself up for failure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom