Original Sin

[Blue Rectangle]

how the hell would I or anyone else alive today be responsible for the actions of one of my ancestors from thousands of years ago?

You're not.  No one said you are responsible for that.

The doctrine of "Original Sin" does.  I quote from the first post in the thread:

"The doctrine holds that every person born into the world is tainted by the wrong-doing of the first ancestors"

Therefore, this doctrine claims that I(along with every other human being) am somehow responsible for something my ancestor did.

"Tainted" does not equal culpability.  An analogy might be a newborn who is born addicted to crack.  He would not be responsible for his predicament, but there is no doubt he is tainted by the wrong-doing of his mother.

[Richard]

how the hell would I or anyone else alive today be responsible for the actions of one of my ancestors from thousands of years ago?

You're not.  No one said you are responsible for that.

The doctrine of "Original Sin" does.  I quote from the first post in the thread:

"The doctrine holds that every person born into the world is tainted by the wrong-doing of the first ancestors"

Therefore, this doctrine claims that I(along with every other human being) am somehow responsible for something my ancestor did.

No.  You're not responsible for it, but you're tained by it.  As the blue rectangle guy said, you cannot live without sin anymore.  You're the victim of Adam and Eve's corruption, but not responsible for what they did.

[Giant Saguaro]

Absolutely I believe in original sin. The way I understand it is the sin element is a part of our environment, a part of the world into which we are born. Maybe a little like if you are born into a kind of crime family or something. We're not responsible per se for the decision Adam and Eve made, we're just born into the world to which they were banished. Now you have the choice to believe or not believe or accept it or make fun of it, whatever you want. I believe God gave us that choice as a result as well.

[Josh/Devilman88]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Baptism is the outward showing of what happens when you get saved.

Baptism is not needed, but we follow what Jesus did when John the baptist  baptisted him.

[KEmperor]

So your god believes us contaminated morally for something we didn't do, aren't responsible for, and weren't even alive for?  Such benevolence.

[Emsworth]

No. However, if we accept the Bible as true, yes.

[John Dibble]

So your god believes us contaminated morally for something we didn't do, aren't responsible for, and weren't even alive for?  Such benevolence.

Especially considering he supposedly has the power to take that sin away from us.

[ilikeverin]

So your god believes us contaminated morally for something we didn't do, aren't responsible for, and weren't even alive for?  Such benevolence.

Especially considering he supposedly has the power to take that sin away from us.

*shrug*

You're still welcome to my God!  Free hugs for anyone who subscribes to my religious philosophy

(Never mind that the 'free hug' policy applies to everyone )

[John Dibble]

So your god believes us contaminated morally for something we didn't do, aren't responsible for, and weren't even alive for?  Such benevolence.

Especially considering he supposedly has the power to take that sin away from us.

*shrug*

You're still welcome to my God!  Free hugs for anyone who subscribes to my religious philosophy

(Never mind that the 'free hug' policy applies to everyone )

I have less problems with some interpretations of Christianity than I do others. The ones that I have problems with are the ones that insist you are evil and you will go to hell without worshipping God.

[Blue Rectangle]

So your god believes us contaminated morally for something we didn't do, aren't responsible for, and weren't even alive for?  Such benevolence.

In order to act morally (or immorally), two things are required:
1. Free will.  You can't be immoral if you have no choice in the matter.  If a tree falls in the forest and crushes a hiker to death, has it sinned by committing murder?
2. Moral judgment.  A dog is not capable of moral judgment, though it has free will.  It therefore cannot sin.  Human being have not only the power to control their actions, but they also have the ability to decide the right course of action.

Original sin is the recognition that the ability to choose between good and evil is part of human nature.  Would it have been more benevolent of God to create us as trees or dogs and thus incapable of sin?

[KEmperor]

So your god believes us contaminated morally for something we didn't do, aren't responsible for, and weren't even alive for?  Such benevolence.

In order to act morally (or immorally), two things are required:
1. Free will.  You can't be immoral if you have no choice in the matter.  If a tree falls in the forest and crushes a hiker to death, has it sinned by committing murder?
2. Moral judgment.  A dog is not capable of moral judgment, though it has free will.  It therefore cannot sin.  Human being have not only the power to control their actions, but they also have the ability to decide the right course of action.

Original sin is the recognition that the ability to choose between good and evil is part of human nature.  Would it have been more benevolent of God to create us as trees or dogs and thus incapable of sin?

Yes, you are absolutely correct with the first part of your statement.  Only humans are capable of morality because we are the only creatures on this planet capable of moral judgement and free will.  However, your second sentence does not make sense.  Your "original sin" doctrine says that we are tainted due to something we did NOT have free will over.  We have no choice or control over anything our distant ancestors did.

[John Dibble]

So your god believes us contaminated morally for something we didn't do, aren't responsible for, and weren't even alive for?  Such benevolence.

In order to act morally (or immorally), two things are required:
1. Free will.  You can't be immoral if you have no choice in the matter.  If a tree falls in the forest and crushes a hiker to death, has it sinned by committing murder?
2. Moral judgment.  A dog is not capable of moral judgment, though it has free will.  It therefore cannot sin.  Human being have not only the power to control their actions, but they also have the ability to decide the right course of action.

Original sin is the recognition that the ability to choose between good and evil is part of human nature.  Would it have been more benevolent of God to create us as trees or dogs and thus incapable of sin?

Yes, you are absolutely correct with the first part of your statement.  Only humans are capable of morality because we are the only creatures on this planet capable of moral judgement and free will.  However, your second sentence does not make sense.  Your "original sin" doctrine says that we are tainted due to something we did NOT have free will over.  We have no choice or control over anything our distant ancestors did.

Further, having the ability to choose between good and evil doesn't make one inherently evil.

[Blue Rectangle]

So your god believes us contaminated morally for something we didn't do, aren't responsible for, and weren't even alive for?  Such benevolence.

In order to act morally (or immorally), two things are required:
1. Free will.  You can't be immoral if you have no choice in the matter.  If a tree falls in the forest and crushes a hiker to death, has it sinned by committing murder?
2. Moral judgment.  A dog is not capable of moral judgment, though it has free will.  It therefore cannot sin.  Human being have not only the power to control their actions, but they also have the ability to decide the right course of action.

Original sin is the recognition that the ability to choose between good and evil is part of human nature.  Would it have been more benevolent of God to create us as trees or dogs and thus incapable of sin?

Yes, you are absolutely correct with the first part of your statement.  Only humans are capable of morality because we are the only creatures on this planet capable of moral judgement and free will.  However, your second sentence does not make sense.  Your "original sin" doctrine says that we are tainted due to something we did NOT have free will over.  We have no choice or control over anything our distant ancestors did.

Further, having the ability to choose between good and evil doesn't make one inherently evil.

Actually, I believe human beings are mostly good.  I in no way believe that we are inherently evil.  I do, however, believe that we are incapable of moral perfection; this is original sin.

Kemp:
I do not see original sin as any sort of punishment.  You seem to be convinced that it is.  I see original sin as an unavoidable result of our humanity.  Just as I did not chose to be born a human, I did not choose to be capable of evil.  I can, however, choose whether or not to do evil.

[KEmperor]

Well, the doctrine says " that every person born into the world is tainted by the wrong-doing of the first ancestors."  Adam, Eve, and their decendents are all being punished because of their wrongdoing.  The fact that we are capable of good and evil has nothing to do with what our great, great, grandparents did.  It's a product of the fact that we have free will.

[John Dibble]

Well, the doctrine says " that every person born into the world is tainted by the wrong-doing of the first ancestors."  Adam, Eve, and their decendents are all being punished because of their wrongdoing.

Yeah, since their decendents didn't do anything wrong, couldn't God have just purified them and let them back into that neat garden place.

[KEmperor]

Well, the doctrine says " that every person born into the world is tainted by the wrong-doing of the first ancestors."  Adam, Eve, and their decendents are all being punished because of their wrongdoing.

Yeah, since their decendents didn't do anything wrong, couldn't God have just purified them and let them back into that neat garden place.

That would have been too forgiving I guess.  The god of the old testiment is all about vengence, fire, and brimstone.

[Blue Rectangle]

Well, the doctrine says " that every person born into the world is tainted by the wrong-doing of the first ancestors."  Adam, Eve, and their decendents are all being punished because of their wrongdoing.

Yeah, since their decendents didn't do anything wrong, couldn't God have just purified them and let them back into that neat garden place.

Seriously?  Yes, he could have.

The metaphor (in my view) is the gaining by the human race of the ability to make moral judgments.  Adam and Eve ate from the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil".  The taint is this ability to act morally or immorally.  We are "punished" only by genetics: we have the same intellectual ability as our ancestors.

So yes, John.  God could cause the human race to devolve to a point where we lose the ability to make moral decisions.  We would then be incapable of sin and would live as our ape ancestors did--in the metaphorical Garden.

[Josh/Devilman88]

hmm no, God in the old testement is the same God today. The Old testement teaches us about the history of the Earth and and prepair the way to Jesus dieing on the cross the new testement teaches us about Jesus and him coming again for us.

[John Dibble]

Well, the doctrine says " that every person born into the world is tainted by the wrong-doing of the first ancestors."  Adam, Eve, and their decendents are all being punished because of their wrongdoing.

Yeah, since their decendents didn't do anything wrong, couldn't God have just purified them and let them back into that neat garden place.

Seriously?  Yes, he could have.

The metaphor (in my view) is the gaining by the human race of the ability to make moral judgments.  Adam and Eve ate from the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil".  The taint is this ability to act morally or immorally.  We are "punished" only by genetics: we have the same intellectual ability as our ancestors.

So yes, John.  God could cause the human race to devolve to a point where we lose the ability to make moral decisions.  We would then be incapable of sin and would live as our ape ancestors did--in the metaphorical Garden.

Well, let me make something clear - I think your interpretation of original sin is not the same as others here. My understanding of it is not that they ate the fruit, but rather that God told them NOT to eat the fruit, so the disobedience to God was the sin, and all humanity has to suffer for the sin of the two original humans.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Well, the doctrine says " that every person born into the world is tainted by the wrong-doing of the first ancestors."  Adam, Eve, and their decendents are all being punished because of their wrongdoing.  The fact that we are capable of good and evil has nothing to do with what our great, great, grandparents did.  It's a product of the fact that we have free will.

works are nothing to God. God wants us to love him and no other god. God is a jeaus god. You can't get to heaven with the blood of Jesus Chirst.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It depends how you look at things really. But it's not something I'm especially interested in or worried about.

[Joe Kakistocracy]

hmm no, God in the old testement is the same God today. The Old testement teaches us about the history of the Earth and and prepair the way to Jesus dieing on the cross the new testement teaches us about Jesus and him coming again for us.

No, the Old Testament is a fairytale much like Lord of the Rings.  Most Christians take in the morals of the stories, but I don't think anybody actually treats it as an actual history lesson any more.

[Emsworth]

works are nothing to God

"You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

[Blue Rectangle]

Well, the doctrine says " that every person born into the world is tainted by the wrong-doing of the first ancestors."  Adam, Eve, and their decendents are all being punished because of their wrongdoing.

Yeah, since their decendents didn't do anything wrong, couldn't God have just purified them and let them back into that neat garden place.

Seriously?  Yes, he could have.

The metaphor (in my view) is the gaining by the human race of the ability to make moral judgments.  Adam and Eve ate from the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil".  The taint is this ability to act morally or immorally.  We are "punished" only by genetics: we have the same intellectual ability as our ancestors.

So yes, John.  God could cause the human race to devolve to a point where we lose the ability to make moral decisions.  We would then be incapable of sin and would live as our ape ancestors did--in the metaphorical Garden.

Well, let me make something clear - I think your interpretation of original sin is not the same as others here. My understanding of it is not that they ate the fruit, but rather that God told them NOT to eat the fruit, so the disobedience to God was the sin, and all humanity has to suffer for the sin of the two original humans.

As Josh just demonstrated, there are widely diverse interpretations of sin and salvation among Christians, let alone the specifics of original sin.  The definition of original sin from the first post is a poor representation of the Catholic view; it's tilted towards the Protestant view.

If we view sin as not simply evil act, but as a general deviation from God, then original sin makes perfect sense.  By gaining the ability to make moral judgment, we necessarily became imperfect.  We gained the ability to do good and evil, and by letting evil into the world we distanced ourselves from God.  The sin was not the disobedience itself, the sin was the result of the disobedience.

[Joe Kakistocracy]

God is a jeaus god.

Presuming you meant 'jealous' there, doesn't that mean God is committing one of the seven deadly sins right there?