Original Sin

[Sleeppy]

and where does that idea come from?

Ezekiel 37:12-14 Therefore, prophesy, and thou hast said unto them, thus said the Lord Jehovah: Lo, I am opening your graves, And have brought you up out of your graves, O My people, And brought you in unto the land of Israel. And ye have known that I [am] Jehovah, In My opening your graves, And in My bringing you up out of your graves, O My people. And I have given My Spirit in you, and ye have lived, And I have caused you to rest on your land, And ye have known that I Jehovah, I have spoken, and I have done [it], An affirmation of Jehovah.'

Daniel 12:2 'And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life age-during, and some to reproaches -- to abhorrence age-during.'

As well as other prophecies, including those in the NT.

 

[Mister Emu]

WE are held responsible for the sins of SOMEONE ELSE.

I don't know where this thread has gone, because I haven't read it all, so someone may have already said it...

The doctrine of original sin is not that we bear responsibility or guilt for the sins of someone else, but that we bear the consequences.

 

[waitasec]

I don't know where this thread has gone, because I haven't read it all, so someone may have already said it...

The doctrine of original sin is not that we bear responsibility or guilt for the sins of someone else, but that we bear the consequences.

is that because we are not born as immortal beings?

 

[Me Myself]

I don't know where this thread has gone, because I haven't read it all, so someone may have already said it...

The doctrine of original sin is not that we bear responsibility or guilt for the sins of someone else, but that we bear the consequences.

And that is unfair.

 

[waitasec]

Ezekiel 37:12-14 Therefore, prophesy, and thou hast said unto them, thus said the Lord Jehovah: Lo, I am opening your graves, And have brought you up out of your graves, O My people, And brought you in unto the land of Israel. And ye have known that I [am] Jehovah, In My opening your graves, And in My bringing you up out of your graves, O My people. And I have given My Spirit in you, and ye have lived, And I have caused you to rest on your land, And ye have known that I Jehovah, I have spoken, and I have done [it], An affirmation of Jehovah.'

Daniel 12:2 'And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life age-during, and some to reproaches -- to abhorrence age-during.'

As well as other prophecies, including those in the NT.

seems like a convenient idea to me

 

[idav]

The doctrine of original sin is not that we bear responsibility or guilt for the sins of someone else, but that we bear the consequences.

No responsibility but punished for it? Normally responsibility and consequence go hand in hand.

 

[Pegg]

And that is unfair.

yes it is. And that is why God has put a means in place to rectify the situation.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Sorry, the thread took off while I was gone! Good little thread.

Just now seeing this edit. I'll admit, good point. But I found a better answer.

Obviously, this says "in the day," but we know that this is not literal, because 2:3 mentions the seventh day of creation. There are probably several references like this.

Also a good read: Genesis 2:17

Results of a simple Google search.

It's not a better answer. Finding another conversation wherein God refers to something else, isn't supporting the argument.

IN THE DAY. That's the end to the issue, really.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It's also quite silly to assume that any Jewish scholar - or anyone practicing Judaism - would agree that God lied and they should've physically died that day.

Same for any Christians or Christian scholars. Just want to point that out.

Actually it's foolish to assume anyone following the Abrahamic God would ever admit that their God lied; no matter what evidence were presented, an apologetic excuse will be made immediately, because the idea cannot be acceptable.

A lot of evidence to support this hypothesis ;p

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The doctrine of original sin is not that we bear responsibility or guilt for the sins of someone else, but that we bear the consequences.

This is essentially changing a single word and not changing the meaning, though.

If we are dieing, we are receiving punishment and thus, are being held 'responsible'.

 

[Me Myself]

yes it is. And that is why God has put a means in place to rectify the situation.

You are just informed that somebody robbed you all your money. They find the person AND the money and punish this person for it, but they don´t give you the money yet.

Then somebody that is NOT from the government or any public institution working for the government tells you that the government will give you your money back, ONLY if you believe that to be true WITHOUT the government giving you any explicit direct message that it will do so.

Do you trust this person? In case you do, do you think the government solved the problem in a fair and efficient way?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

yes it is. And that is why God has put a means in place to rectify the situation.

How is God rectifying the situation when we have to do the work? And potentially go to Hell anyway?

God getting rid of sin and/or death using his own power would actually be rectifying the situation.

 

[Thief]

How is God rectifying the situation when we have to do the work? And potentially go to Hell anyway?

God getting rid of sin and/or death using his own power would actually be rectifying the situation.

And you would then be no more than a well trained animal.

Care to step up?

 

[Mister Emu]

is that because we are not born as immortal beings?

Not sure what that has to do with what I said...

No responsibility but punished for it? Normally responsibility and consequence go hand in hand.

Not punished for, altered because of...

I doubt that second sentence; when a murderer kills someone, for instance, there are consequences that the family and society of the murdered person experience. These consequences do not in any way imply responsibility.

This is essentially changing a single word and not changing the meaning, though.

Not at all, it is just an observance of the reality that we do not act in isolation. Our actions effect others even though they have no responsibility for those actions.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

And you would then be no more than a well trained animal.

Care to step up?

Adam and Eve didn't mind. What's good enough for them s good for me. Seeing as how this is the reward you/we expect in the afterlife already....

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Not at all, it is just an observance of the reality that we do not act in isolation. Our actions effect others even though they have no responsibility for those actions.

Rewording, same meaning

core is identical

 

[waitasec]

Not sure what that has to do with what I said...

well you said this:

I don't know where this thread has gone, because I haven't read it all, so someone may have already said it...

The doctrine of original sin is not that we bear responsibility or guilt for the sins of someone else, but that we bear the consequences.

is that because we are not born as immortal beings?

in other words, is the consequence we bear our mortality?

 

[Willamena]

This is essentially changing a single word and not changing the meaning, though.

If we are dieing, we are receiving punishment and thus, are being held 'responsible'.

It totally changes the meaning, because it removes an agent from perpetrating a "punishment" against humanity. A consequence is a natural effect of a cause.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It totally changes the meaning, because it removes an agent from perpetrating a "punishment" against humanity. A consequence is a natural effect of a cause.

The initial cause is God's desire to punish. The agent is merely one step back in a chain that would never have occurred without his direct participation. I mean, what is 'the cause'?

We are simply substituting less-aggressive words for 'punishment', because of the implication. You are removing the agent because to impugn the agent creates a moral dilemma in someone who holds said agent as perfectly loving or somesuch.

The agent says he possesses one type of attribute
The agent acts strongly in a manner displaying the opposite of that attribute
That's a problem.

 

[Thief]

The initial cause is God's desire to punish. The agent is merely one step back in a chain that would never have occurred without his direct participation. I mean, what is 'the cause'?

We are simply substituting less-aggressive words for 'punishment', because of the implication. You are removing the agent because to impugn the agent creates a moral dilemma in someone who holds said agent as perfectly loving or somesuch.

You're still working from the wrong podium.

God as Creator...attempting to set in motion ...'something' that will render
a sane and functional spirit.

Your post above indicates a dysfunction of spirit.
Your portrayal of God displays it.

Assume life after death....you will encounter 'Something' greater than yourself.

Your perspective of God will render what result?