Original Sin

[Cesar]

i'm not following, you said

Yes, I said they had been doing animals sacrifices rather than sacrificing humans. So?

 

[harun abdul azeeze]

The Messiah, 'Isa son of Maryam, was only the Messenger of Allah and His Word, which He cast into Maryam, and a Spirit from Him. (Surat an-Nisa': 171)

When the angels said: "Maryam, your Lord gives you good news of a Word from Him. His name is the Messiah, 'Isa son of Maryam, of high esteem in this world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near." (Surah Al 'Imran: 45)

 

[waitasec]

Yes, I said they had been doing animals sacrifices rather than sacrificing humans. So?

because god didn't like human sacrifices as it was a pagan practice then you mention jesus paying for a ransom...a human sacrifice.

 

[Cesar]

because god didn't like human sacrifices as it was a pagan practice then you mention jesus paying for a ransom...a human sacrifice.

Indeed, it was forbidden to sacrifice people (as it is now, definitely). No one ever has the right to sacrifice a human being and it's blasphemous to believe than human blood shed will save anyone.

Still, it was the Son's will to sacrifice Himself. It was not murder or whatever like that. Also, God allowed Noah to eat meat after the Flood even if He had forbidden that earlier. God sets the rules, but He can also lift them.

Anyway, why are we discussing this? The aim of this thread is talking about the original sin, not sacrifices.

 

[riley2112]

I think it's fair to say that nearly everyone is born selfish, greedy and corrupt to some degree - it's just human nature.

however, if we follow the teachings of the Bible then we can change into better people.

Satan has entered into human DNA and needs to be fought off by believing in Christ.

With all due respect. where did you get that from?

 

[harun abdul azeeze]

With all due respect. where did you get that from?

When the affair is decided, Satan will say: "Allah made you a promise, a promise of truth, and I made you a promise but broke my promise. I had no authority over you, except that I called you and you responded to me. Do not, therefore, blame me, but blame yourselves. I cannot come to your aid, nor you to mine. I reject the way you associated me with Allah before." The wrongdoers will have a painful punishment. (The Holy Qur'an, 16:22 Ibrahim)

 

[waitasec]

Indeed, it was forbidden to sacrifice people (as it is now, definitely). No one ever has the right to sacrifice a human being and it's blasphemous to believe than human blood shed will save anyone.

Still, it was the Son's will to sacrifice Himself. It was not murder or whatever like that. Also, God allowed Noah to eat meat after the Flood even if He had forbidden that earlier. God sets the rules, but He can also lift them.

i disagree. jesus tried to flee when he was arrested
mark 14:41
41 Returning the third time, he said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!”
and he said
"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
luke 22:42

Anyway, why are we discussing this? The aim of this thread is talking about the original sin, not sacrifices.

because you brought up

seriously, i think this is how we got on the subject

Yes, they died spiritually. What I meant earlier to say is that I didn't know whether they had repented (after their spiritual death, obviously). I don't know if they're saved or not, but they died, as God had said.

well being that god took care of them after the fall i suppose that they are/or will go to heaven... which begs the question, why were they taken care of with out the atonement of christ while we are in need of it?

 

[Godobeyer]

Here is something that bugs me and I would like to discuss. It seems that Christianity (perhaps other religions also, I am unsure) teaches that we are born with "original sin", which is inherited because of Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden. WE are held responsible for the sins of SOMEONE ELSE. I cannot see how this belief makes sense.

First, if god is loving and forgiving, why would he hold an everlasting grudge against humans? If it is so that we must accept Christ, it seems kind of like a set up...

Second, why should we even be held responsible for the sins of another in general? Nobody is responsible for the sins of another in any other case outside of this one. Why is this one held against all of humanity? Again, it seems like a set up.

Discuss

Good question
I have already posted two thread about the ORIGINAL SIN ,
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...4991-did-adam-pbuh-couldnt-sacrifice-his.html
and
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...esting-hypothese-adam-knew-how-sacrifice.html

unforuntely rarely when someone reply in them !!!!

hello all
as we know that Abel and Cain did not sacrifice for Adam and Eve sin , they sacrifice for them selves ok
and we know that Jesus(pbuh) die to sacrifece for sin Adam and Eve .

here we go :
original sin done by Adam ane Eve right ? , Cain and Abel both born after the original sin right ?
Adam proposed to Cain and Abel both ,to sacrifice to God right ?
from Cain and Abel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Adam proposed to refer the question to God by means of a sacrifice. God rejected Cain's sacrifice, signifying His disapproval of his marriage with Aclima, and Cain slew his brother in a fit of jealousy
that's mean the sacrifice (methode) existed before Jesus (pbuh) by Adam and Cain and Abel !!!! right ?

if sacrifice (to God) of Abel and Cain proposed by their father Adam , why Adam did not propose a sacrifice to God instead of his childern or Jesus (pbuh) , because he (adam pbuh) knew how to sacrifice to God !!!!!

if God did not forgave his sin yet , should He (God) accept the sacrifice of one his (Adam) kids ?

 

[Willamena]

HH thinks that the above quote has a time constraint attached to it (that day). I don't see it. Do you agree with him that there is a time constraint?

I see myths as being immediately relevant to the reader, and so yes: the time element, "this day," is now.

 

[Sleeppy]

Indeed, it was forbidden to sacrifice people (as it is now, definitely). No one ever has the right to sacrifice a human being and it's blasphemous to believe than human blood shed will save anyone.

Still, it was the Son's will to sacrifice Himself. It was not murder or whatever like that. Also, God allowed Noah to eat meat after the Flood even if He had forbidden that earlier. God sets the rules, but He can also lift them.

Anyway, why are we discussing this? The aim of this thread is talking about the original sin, not sacrifices.

Mark 10:45 'for even the Son of Man came not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.'

 

[Sleeppy]

god did not like human sacrifices though...

What Jews Believe

Isaiah 53:5 And he is pierced for our transgressions, Bruised for our iniquities, The chastisement of our peace is on him, And by his bruise there is healing to us.

53:7 It hath been exacted, and he hath answered, And he openeth not his mouth, As a lamb to the slaughter he is brought, And as a sheep before its shearers is dumb, And he openeth not his mouth.

Old Testament Prophet, Isaiah.

 

[Sleeppy]

that is one of the reasons why i question the literal interpretation of the fall

it should be.

this is how i see it;
the NT is to the hebrew bible as what the book of mormon is to the NT

You question it because of other opinions?

The NT is more of a continuation of OT prophecy.. The Book of Mormon creates its own.

 

[Duck]

No. We were succeeding, until we went against God.

God didn't create sin. Adam and Eve weren't like babies, they knew how to follow the command given, babies obviously don't.

given that the command they disobeyed was to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, one must presume that they had no knowledge of the goodness/badness of disobeying that particular command. One could argue I suppose that YHWH's statement to Adam regarding death as a result could be considered knowledge of the consequences, but I am not so sure. At the point that Adam was given the injunction, he had no knowledge of death, at this point the garden was uncorrupted and innocent of death, so Adam wouldn't have understood the concept. So I would argue that yes, Adam and Eve were like babies, they did not know of the consequences of their actions, therefore they were set up to fail. Notice that death was not an immediate consequence (Adam and Eve lived HOW long after the expulsion?) and that YHWH's stated purpose in expelling A&E from the garden was to prevent their immortality by eating from the OTHER tree, the one that was only forbidden AFTER they attained knowledge of good and evil.

 

[Sleeppy]

given that the command they disobeyed was to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, one must presume that they had no knowledge of the goodness/badness of disobeying that particular command. One could argue I suppose that YHWH's statement to Adam regarding death as a result could be considered knowledge of the consequences, but I am not so sure. At the point that Adam was given the injunction, he had no knowledge of death, at this point the garden was uncorrupted and innocent of death, so Adam wouldn't have understood the concept. So I would argue that yes, Adam and Eve were like babies, they did not know of the consequences of their actions, therefore they were set up to fail. Notice that death was not an immediate consequence (Adam and Eve lived HOW long after the expulsion?) and that YHWH's stated purpose in expelling A&E from the garden was to prevent their immortality by eating from the OTHER tree, the one that was only forbidden AFTER they attained knowledge of good and evil.

Eve was reasoning with herself and the serpent. She didn't ask what death was, neither did the serpent clarify, because they both knew what it meant.

 

[waitasec]

Isaiah 53:5 And he is pierced for our transgressions, Bruised for our iniquities, The chastisement of our peace is on him, And by his bruise there is healing to us.

53:7 It hath been exacted, and he hath answered, And he openeth not his mouth, As a lamb to the slaughter he is brought, And as a sheep before its shearers is dumb, And he openeth not his mouth.

Old Testament Prophet, Isaiah.

but that same passage says he has offspring...
53:10
Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand:
Isaiah 53 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

so your prophecy is a moot point.

 

[waitasec]

The NT is more of a continuation of OT prophecy.. The Book of Mormon creates its own.

the same can be said about the NT.

 

[riley2112]

When the affair is decided, Satan will say: "Allah made you a promise, a promise of truth, and I made you a promise but broke my promise. I had no authority over you, except that I called you and you responded to me. Do not, therefore, blame me, but blame yourselves. I cannot come to your aid, nor you to mine. I reject the way you associated me with Allah before." The wrongdoers will have a painful punishment. (The Holy Qur'an, 16:22 Ibrahim)

again, with all due respect, Who wrote that?

 

[Sleeppy]

but that same passage says he has offspring...
53:10
Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand:
Isaiah 53 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

so your prophecy is a moot point.

the same can be said about the NT.

Not really. Even if your interpretation was true, it still refers to human sacrifice, pleasing to the LORD. Even so, I'd argue "his seed" are Christians.

Also, not really. I don't know of any NT prophecies referring to Mormonism.

 

[Duck]

Not true.

They didn't defend their decision by saying they didn't know what they were doing. Eve said she forgot. She didn't actually forget, because the snake was telling her that God was lying.

And the snake was the only Being to tell the truth in this story. According to this "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:17 KJV) After finding Adam and Eve clothed and interrogating them YHWH says :"Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:" (Genesis 3:22 KJV). After the Expulsion, Genesis says that, "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." (Genesis 5:5 KJV). How does one get around the dichotomy presented here?

 

[waitasec]

You question it because of other opinions?

this story is an opinion of mankind's origins from an ancient primitive and ignorant POV...