Original Sin

[ACFaith.Com]

http://www.acfaith.com/originalsin.html

Hot off the press: The five reasons I do not accept the doctrine of original sin.

Let me know what you think :)

Vinnie

[Celsus]

You misspelled "conclusion."

Joel

[Ishmael]

I appreciate the laying out of you entire unbiblical argument before we debate. Thanks. I will now challenge you formally in the coaches' forum.

[ACFaith.Com]

Thx for pointing out the spelling error :)

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-09-2003 @ 02:44 AM
Calvinist:

I appreciate the laying out of you entire unbiblical argument before we debate. Thanks. I will now challenge you formally in the coaches' forum. I think I'd like in on this as well.

[spl_cadet]

First, the nightly news does not establish the authenticity of this abstract theological concept teaching the imputation of guilt or sin nature any more than the nightly news affirms the absence of a loving omnipotent God. The latter is how most non-theists would interpret the nightly news but Christians can at least affirm that the nightly news demonstrates the sinfulness of humanity and our need for atonement. But that is not equivalent to demonstrating original sin.

Original sin means our fallen nature and thus propensity to sin. The nightly news serves as a nice proof of this because it shows how everyone just keeps on a sinning.



Second, arguments two and three commit the non sequitur fallacy as their appealed authority cannot be demonstrated to be fully substantial on this. Even if the authority is granted it cannot be demonstrated that Jesus accepted the doctrine of original sin (despite his reference to Adam and Eve on marriage). I will also offer some exegetical issues with original sin in objection number four below.

Do you even know what orginal sin is?



Third, the notion that Jesus died so that people might be reconciled to God is not dependent upon the factuality of the doctrine of original sin.

True.





Finally, if a literal garden story is required to maintain that God is all good for Christians then the Christian faith is in serious trouble. It would go beyond the scope of this paper for me to comment on the problem of evil though. That will be done on my site in the future sometime. For now it will suffice to point out that even if original sin solves this moral difficulty, it raises its own set. With that being said we now turn to five difficulties preventing me from accepting the doctrine of original sin.

:hrm: I don't see your point.



It is unethical to hold someone responsible for the sins of another person.

Correct. You however have erected a strawman here.



First, the punishment or rather, the effects of the fall do not fit the crime. Why would God set up a system where two people eating a piece of fruit against his will would cause so much damage to subsequent civilization (billions and billions of people)? The situation in Genesis seems like it was rigged-like it was a recipe intended to create disaster.

God said no. Therefore, don't do it. It's like saying that there's no reason to condemn someone for killing someone even though God said no. A divine commandment is of the utmost importance and to break it is one of the worst sins, simply due to its very nature.



If Adam and Eve did not know "good and evil" how much more do the effects or punishment of the fall not fit the crime?

They hadn't experienced it is one explanation. Another is, what kind of idiot needs to break God's laws first before knowing that somethiing is bad even though they were already told that it was bad? And remember, Adam and Eve were adults.



Was it destroyed in the (global or local depending on who you ask) flood? I take it, paradoxically, the tree of life died somehow and this allowed the cherubium to go on its way?

Yes it was destroyed. No it isn't paradoxial. Where did the Bible state that the tree itself was immortal?



Even if this is so, it would seem silly for God to guard it with a cherubium and a flaming sword rather than just destorying it himself.

Why bother nuking the place if you know its going to get wasted anyway?



Fourth, things like Adam naming all the animals are clearly fictional. Some apologists try to reinterpret these passages (e.g. Hugh Ross) but their eisegesis and back-reading into scripture does not stand on its own merit.

How is it clearly fictional? "Red-bird. Blue bird. Butt-faced monkey." It wasn't like our modern systems.



Fifth, there are numerous other creation myths from around the world that all have such mythical stories as the Genesis tales:

And just where in Gensis is a giant vagina? Besides, what does that prove? They can all have a common source after all.




Why should I believe modern science is incorrect and that the account of the origin and fall of man in Genesis 1-3 is historical? Current scientific knowledge regarding the origin and spread of human kind is in direct conflict with the Genesis account (even Hugh Ross's interpretation!). Why should a mythical story be given precedence over the facts of modern science?

Because I have yet to see a convincing proof of evolution, and evolution doesn't contradict Genesis at all. Check out the theistic evolution theories.



There are differing translations as we just saw.

:huh: But they all mean the same...



Is there a reference to Adam "in whom" or through whom" or "because of whom" all sinned?

A meaningless semantics argument. Regardless, it means that it's all Adam's fault that we are the way that we are.



How do human being sin?

They don't do what God wants us to do/do what He doesn't want us to :duh:



Did we sin by being united with our progenitor Adam?

No.



Through what mechanism is the sin nature or depravity of Adam passed on?

Sex. Since we don't have a spiritual life like Adam originally had, that's why we are fallen.

[yo lunch]

I'm still unclear. Just what is and who is responsible for committing the original sin? Is the Adam and Eve story true or allegory? If untrue and just a metaphor, then please explain the rneed for Jesus to "save" us all?

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm still unclear. Just what is and who is responsible for committing the original sin? Is the Adam and Eve story true or allegory? If untrue and just a metaphor, then please explain the rneed for Jesus to "save" us all?
You couldn't just start a new thread?

Ah yes... Adam and Eve... the story with so many different interpretations. Some can't agree on the sin. Some say the sin was questioning god, some merely for breaking the rule. Others say that the intent behind rule breaking was rather juvenile and harmless. You can go even further noting that the Serpent could have originally been the protagonist in the story.

The hard part about Original Sin in the story of "The Fall" is that the man and woman aren't kicked from paradise because they broke a rule.

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." - Genesis 3:22

I love stories that have been around for 2600 years and still no absolute consensus.

[AngelDragon]

Original Sin has nothing to do with what Adam and Eve did. Why can't some people understand this?

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I'm still unclear. Just what is and who is responsible for committing the original sin? Is the Adam and Eve story true or allegory?

I think it can be read either way myself. To be honest I dont really care that much.


If untrue and just a metaphor, then please explain the rneed for Jesus to "save" us all?

What? Are you saying people dont do bad things?

[yo lunch]

Original Sin has nothing to do with what Adam and Eve did. Why can't some people understand this?

Perhaps the misunderstanding comes from all of the various forms of exegesis extant (Midrash). There are many different factions of Christianity and division among those. Some say Original Sin is with Adam and Eve and others do not. What, my dear Christian, do YOU say? Please tell me where it came from.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Perhaps the misunderstanding comes from all of the various forms of exegesis extant (Midrash). There are many different factions of Christianity and division among those. Some say Original Sin is with Adam and Eve and others do not. What, my dear Christian, do YOU say? Please tell me where it came from.

I think what she's getting at(correct me if I'm wrong here) is that 'origianl sin' has nothing do with us somehow inherting our sin/sinfulness from A&E, but is about they set a pattern, a precidednt if you will of sin and punishment.

IOW, it wouldnt have matter if Adam and Eve had done, or if somebody else had. The point is that at some point, somebody chose to disobey God, and that was the 'original sin.'

[AngelDragon]

I think what she's getting at(correct me if I'm wrong here) is that 'origianl sin' has nothing do with us somehow inherting our sin/sinfulness from A&E, but is about they set a pattern, a precidednt if you will of sin and punishment.

IOW, it wouldnt have matter if Adam and Eve had done, or if somebody else had. The point is that at some point, somebody chose to disobey God, and that was the 'original sin.'

That touches on my point, but isn't the whole thing. And I'm not a damn "she." :rant: Why does everybody think I'm a girl? It says "MALE" right there in my posts! "MALE!"

[sc_q_jayce]

Well, you are the walking oxymoron. How much more oxymoronic can it get with calling a male female?

[AngelDragon]

Well, you are the walking oxymoron. How much more oxymoronic can it get with calling a male female?

:sigh:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

That touches on my point, but isn't the whole thing.

ah ok.


And I'm not a damn "she." :rant: Why does everybody think I'm a girl? It says "MALE" right there in my posts! "MALE!"

Oh sorry. I never bother to read those things. And that dragon you have as an avatar just screams "GIRL!"

[AngelDragon]

ah ok.



Oh sorry. I never bother to read those things. And that dragon you have as an avatar just screams "GIRL!"

There's not a dragon alive that screams "girl," not even girl dragons.

[sc_q_jayce]

Dratini.

[AngelDragon]

Dratini.

Cute =/= girl. Besides, Dratini's more of a salamander than a real dragon.

[yo lunch]

I think what she's getting at(correct me if I'm wrong here) is that 'origianl sin' has nothing do with us somehow inherting our sin/sinfulness from A&E, but is about they set a pattern, a precidednt if you will of sin and punishment.

IOW, it wouldnt have matter if Adam and Eve had done, or if somebody else had. The point is that at some point, somebody chose to disobey God, and that was the 'original sin.'

And just what was the nature of the offense? Why would ALL of us suffer for such offense? Why not just get the one who did it? Does a merciful and just god work that way?

We humans know that if one of our children steals a candy bar from a store, the other one is not punished for his mis-deed. That is not fair or just. It is common sense not to punish the innocent bystander or one child who was not even on the scene at the time of the act.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

And just what was the nature of the offense?

Well if the Genesis story is literal, then it was eating from the tree of knowldge of good and evil. If not then the specific nature of the offence is unknown, but can be boiled down to disobeying God's command.


Why would ALL of us suffer for such offense? Why not just get the one who did it? Does a merciful and just god work that way?

Who said we're ALL punished for the original sin? We're punished for our indvidual sins. A&E(or whoever commited the original sin) were simply the first to disobey God, and thus the first to set the precident of sin.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Who said we're ALL punished for the original sin? We're punished for our indvidual sins. A&E(or whoever commited the original sin) were simply the first to disobey God, and thus the first to set the precident of sin.But aren't there some Christians that do believe original sin came from The Fall and does infect humanity?

Sometimes a frustrating part of apologetics is arguing different portions of theology with different types of Christians. Original sin, the trinity, a young earth, authorship of the Torah, etc... there are different stances to these issues. One Christian will say it is preposterous to suggest we are being punished because of Adam and Eve's sin, another Christian would say otherwise.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

But aren't there some Christians that do believe original sin came from The Fall and does infect humanity?

Yes, some do. But I'd already said thats not what I(or apparently Angel Dragon) believe.

[AngelDragon]

Yes, some do. But I'd already said thats not what I(or apparently Angel Dragon) believe.

No, that's what I believe; I just believe the Fall is different from the traditional "OMG Adam ate an apple" scenario.

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, that's what I believe; I just believe the Fall is different from the traditional "OMG Adam ate an apple" scenario.Can you elaborate please?

[AngelDragon]

Can you elaborate please?

I can, but I don't feel like it.

[yo lunch]

Well if the Genesis story is literal, then it was eating from the tree of knowldge of good and evil. If not then the specific nature of the offence is unknown, but can be boiled down to disobeying God's command.



Who said we're ALL punished for the original sin? We're punished for our indvidual sins. A&E(or whoever commited the original sin) were simply the first to disobey God, and thus the first to set the precident of sin.

The word "If" uses only two letters but allows for huge options and escapes. As in your case, it allows you to have it both ways, which will not due here.

The fact is that you do not know how sin entered into the world. However, Paul, the hero of Christendom, states very clearly "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." Rom :5:12. And again "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." 1 Cor 15:22.

So, it seems clear to me that we ALL made sinners by Adam and Eve. Therefore, it follows that if Adam and Eve are not real people, the need for Jesus falls flat. Is that not true?

If that Creation Story is myth, Allegory, or Metaphor, all the rest of the Bible MUST FALL! That is especially true for all of the New Testament and the Christ therein!

So, my Dear Christian, I suggest that you do "think a lot" on this matter.:pray:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

The word "If" uses only two letters but allows for huge options and escapes. As in your case, it allows you to have it both ways, which will not due here.

Not so much trying to 'have it both ways' as being unsure/apathetic on the issue.


So, it seems clear to me that we ALL made sinners by Adam and Eve.

Not quite. Sin entered the world through Adam and Eve, because they were the first to commit sin. But that doesnt mean their sin made us sinful. We're sinful in our own right.


Therefore, it follows that if Adam and Eve are not real people, the need for Jesus falls flat. Is that not true?

Nope. Jesus didnt come to save us from A&Es sin, but our own indvidual sins. So unless you want to deny that people do bad things I suggest you drop this line of argumentation.


If that Creation Story is myth, Allegory, or Metaphor, all the rest of the Bible MUST FALL! That is especially true for all of the New Testament and the Christ therein!

psssst...my interpertaion of original sin works whether or not Adam and Eve were real people.


So, my Dear Christian, I suggest that you do "think a lot" on this matter.:pray:

I have already.

[yo lunch]

Not so much trying to 'have it both ways' as being unsure/apathetic on the issue.



Not quite. Sin entered the world through Adam and Eve, because they were the first to commit sin. But that doesnt mean their sin made us sinful. We're sinful in our own right.



Nope. Jesus didnt come to save us from A&Es sin, but our own indvidual sins. So unless you want to deny that people do bad things I suggest you drop this line of argumentation.



psssst...my interpertaion of original sin works whether or not Adam and Eve were real people.



I have already.

You, my friend, are not who I wish to address my argumentation because you do not appear to be a true Christian. What the hell is a "Zombiest" anyway?

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

You, my friend, are not who I wish to address my argumentation

Ok thats cool.


because you do not appear to be a true Christian.

How are you defining 'true Christian?' I find it quite ironic that athiests consider themselves fit to judge that.


What the hell is a "Zombiest" anyway?

A joke. A while back I made a joke about starting my own zombie cult. At the end all believers will be ressurected into new zombie bodies to consume the brains of the wicked unbelievers.

[yo lunch]

Ok thats cool.



How are you defining 'true Christian?' I find it quite ironic that athiests consider themselves fit to judge that.



A joke. A while back I made a joke about starting my own zombie cult. At the end all believers will be ressurected into new zombie bodies to consume the brains of the wicked unbelievers.

Big joke but not funny. We Atheist identify ourselves proudly but some of you Christians choose to employ witless humor and hide behind your true nature .

I was not trying to make a judgment as to your status as a Christian. With your not giving your real religion, it was a good question to know exactly what I was dealing with. After all, I want serious discussion as stated by the motto of this web.

As for taking over the brains of unbelievers, that would allow you to become TRULY liberated. Too bad you can't be Spock for a moment and really read our minds in order to gain that insight and see that you are wasting your time chasing a false god!

Not being a Christian, I do not believe in Zombies, Ghosts, Devils, Demons, Angels, and all such nonsense! They belong in the realm of gods , Jolly Green Giants and theTooth Fariy! All myth !!!!! :ahem:

I shall assume that you are a Christian from here on out.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Big joke but not funny. We Atheist identify ourselves proudly but some of you Christians choose to employ witless humor and hide behind your true nature .

Or we just like a good joke, and zombie movie.


I was not trying to make a judgment as to your status as a Christian. With your not giving your real religion, it was a good question to know exactly what I was dealing with. After all, I want serious discussion as stated by the motto of this web.

Fair enough. I assumed your statement had something to do with my understanding of original sin.


As for taking over the brains of unbelievers, that would allow you to become TRULY liberated.

I said consume(as in eat) not 'take over' Havent you ever watched a zombie movie? It certainly doesnt make the zombies any smarter.

in any case I dont find atheism particularly 'liberating.' Actually that was part of the reason I started moving away from the woldview my parents had raised me in.


Too bad you can't be Spock for a moment and really read our minds in order to gain that insight and see that you are wasting your time chasing a false god!

Is that a begged question I see?


I shall assume that you are a Christian from here on out.

Thank you.

[Overlord!]

http://www.acfaith.com/originalsin.html
Even if the authority is granted it cannot be demonstrated that Jesus accepted the doctrine of original sin (despite his reference to Adam and Eve on marriage).

A key to understanding sin is given in John 16:9
There, sin is defined as "because men do not believe in me".
Translated, the original sin is *unbelief in Christ*.
Furthermore, all sin is the same.

Unbelief in Christ leads to insanity because Christ is reality.
Sin and insanity, therefore, are synonyms.
S.i.n. [acronym] translates to *seriously insane notions*...about Christ.
The rest is history.
The whole world of time is built on sin, as defined here.

The god-of-this-world is insane.
Whatever made man in it's own image is insane.
And it makes man as a scapegoat...something to blame.
It sets man up for failure, trying to prove that man is guilty.

Men are programmed to blame each other.
This keeps insanity alive.
The world is the picture of a mind driven mad by guilt.
Sin makes guilt the truth.
Rather, Christ is the truth...and Christ is sinless.