Faminedynasty
Active Member
If we are born corrupted, isn't God to blame? And is in not illogical to punish men (and, to a greater extent women) for the sins of their most distant supposed ancestors?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I don't believe in Original Sin either (no Orthodox Christian does) but the fact that we are born mortal and find it easier to sin than to be righteous argues that we are corrupt in some way (at least from a Christian perspective). I'm with you on the children, too. Infants are not guilty of any sin and, indeed, nor can they sin at all. When we Orthodox partake of the Eucharist we are meant to confess and receive absolution first so as to partake worthily. This often means that adults go some period of time between communion. The exception to this is small children (they also are given the Eucharist in an Orthodox Church - 'suffer the little children' and all that) who normally commune every time they attend and are not required (often not able either) to confess first. They, being sinless innocents, simply cannot be unworthy of the Body and Blood.Terrywoodenpic said:Fraid I don' believe in original sin.
It takes a conscious decision to do what we call sin
We are born with out that ability.
Terry
So if it weren't for laws, you'd be out there killing people?skills101 said:I think morals came simply from man a long time ago... Maybe one day, someone thought "If I kill this man here, that's one less worker on my farm. It would not benefit ME to kill him." I believe man has expanded from there. Now it's law, not morality, that prohibits one to kill his fellow man.
What of those who never hear your gods "commandments?" Do you believe they are sentenced to hell? If not, what is the point of preaching to them? If you do, and they refuse, you are in effect damning them.dan said:We are born perfectly innocent before God. Whatever wrongdoings we commit before we reach the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong is swallowed up in the atonement of Christ. This is what is known as "general salvation" and is the free gift spoken of by Paul in Romans. Sin is knowingly acting in opposition to the Lord's commandments. Babies are incapable of this.
Rom. 1:18-20 " For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been crearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."What of those who never hear your gods "commandments?" Do you believe they are sentenced to hell? If not, what is the point of preaching to them? If you do, and they refuse, you are in effect damning them.
Such love. No wonder Christianity is losing appeal.SoliDeoGloria said:Rom. 1:18-20 " For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been crearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
There's a slew of websites devoted to that...unfortunately it ain't so metaphoticalMaster Vigil said:...we should try to reach the state of a new born babe. (Metaphorically speaking of course. )
OK, so God is evident to everyone in what he's made? So if you're an obscure tribe living in the middle of a rainforest and you've never come into contact with so called civilisation you couldn't get any closer to nature and the wonders of what God has done, could you? So if you believe there is a supreme being, it must be God, even if you refer to him as Bagingi and he has the head of a monkey.SoliDeoGloria said:Rom. 1:18-20 " For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been crearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
God didn't make it evident to me. I don't see any invisible attributes, eternal power or divine nature anywhere. If I don't believe in God, and have perfectly logical reasons for it, will I go to Hell if it turns out I was wrong?Rom. 1:18-20 " For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been crearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
1) No you won't go to Hell. You are only responsible for the understanding you have in this life. If you don't believe in God you cannot be condemned for disobeying him; unless, of course, you have had plenty of opportunities given to you to accept him.stemann said:God didn't make it evident to me. I don't see any invisible attributes, eternal power or divine nature anywhere. If I don't believe in God, and have perfectly logical reasons for it, will I go to Hell if it turns out I was wrong?
And about the born corrupt question, we are born innocent, but apparently inevitably become corrupt through adolescence. This is what the Adam and Eve story is a metaphor for.
And something I have always wondered, if Adam could choose freely between God and eternal life or damnation, death, toil and pain, why the latter? Was he stupid or have i missed something?
Why did God give Adam two conflicting commandments. I understand the 'without pain there would be no pleasure' argument. But if he did not know good and evil before he ate the apple, how did he know it was bad (or good) to eat it?2) Adam was not stupid, and yes you did miss something. Adam was given two commadnments: to multiply and replenish the earth, and not to eat the fruit. Without the fall they could never have had children. God wanted them to choose which commandment to obey, and they chose the more important. Without the fall Adam and Eve would have lived forever in the Garden of Eden never having known joy because they never would have felt pain. Everything has its opposite and those opposites are what bring variety and enjoyment to life. Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy.
He had no intrinsic understanding of morality, but he had logic. All he knew was that God said not to eat it, but he knew they could not replenish the earth in the state they were in. He had to be enticed by one side or the other. Satan enticed Eve one way and she made the decision to follow. Adam followed after a conscious decision to break the one commandment to fulfill the other. It wasn't even a sin, it was a transgression.stemann said:Why did God give Adam two conflicting commandments. I understand the 'without pain there would be no pleasure' argument. But if he did not know good and evil before he ate the apple, how did he know it was bad (or good) to eat it?
And that is exactly what happens when one tries to buld a doctrine on a couple of verses without taking the rest of the Bible into context.So if you believe there is a supreme being, it must be God, even if you refer to him as Bagingi and he has the head of a monkey.
I've just done all the missionaries out of a job, no need to convert anyone there:jiggy: .
Thank you, linesmen, thank you ball boys.