Original sin?

[Coriolis]

If original sin is the idea that we are all born already sinful, it is a foolish, hurtful, counterproductive idea. At most I would agree we are born with the capacity to sin, to make mistakes. In short, we are not perfect. God in this sense does not save us from sin or original sin. Instead he provides a moral compass to help us know right from wrong and thereby avoid (but not eliminate) mistakes, and to confront the mistakes we do make.

I don't see why belief in original sin is required to be a Christian. I thought a Christian just had to believe in the divinity of Christ, and follow his teachings.

 

[Giggly]

I do sometimes and it's very disturbing.

 

[tinker683]

When I made my attempt to conform, it was with Missouri Synod Lutherans... that kind of stuff doesn't fly there. Then I tried to prod the SO to do the ELCA thing after I got allergic to MS services, that didn't fly either.

The Missouri Synod folks are an....interesting bunch. My old church, an ELCA church, literally split in half when the ELCA released it's position on allowing gay's to serve as ministers some time ago. Those that left (because they felt it was sinful) went to more conservative branches.

I would have been quiet snug back in my Fundy hey-day

If original sin is the idea that we are all born already sinful, it is a foolish, hurtful, counterproductive idea. At most I would agree we are born with the capacity to sin, to make mistakes. In short, we are not perfect. God in this sense does not save us from sin or original sin. Instead he provides a moral compass to help us know right from wrong and thereby avoid (but not eliminate) mistakes, and to confront the mistakes we do make.

I don't see why belief in original sin is required to be a Christian. I thought a Christian just had to believe in the divinity of Christ, and follow his teachings.

Ah, but what does it mean to be a Christian these days? The word is so nebulous I'm afraid it's going to lose it's meaning eventually.

And apparently you don't even though a lot of denominations comment or believe in it. I know for a fact the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church does, I do not know what the other various denominations think or do..

Roman Catholic Catechism: http://www.scborromeo.org/mobileccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#III

Lutheran Book of Concord: http://bookofconcord.org/sd-originalsin.php

 

[NotOfTwo]

Does anyone believe in or think about the idea of original sin? I've not heard it talked about much at all lately, although I did hear a presenter on a radio show lately talk about losing his roman catholic faith and how he embraced humanism, he didnt think he was sure if he could call it humanism but he said that he did think that the idea of original sin was so absurd as to make him question the whole subject of faith and belief.

I dont know much about the idea in its origin, it was decided by the church from scripture? It is an RC thing? I know it was associated with the importance of baptism and sacramentalism and the reformation sought to break that, although was it reinvented by the schismatic and protestant christians with theories of predestination and election?

I remember seeing Robert Crumb (is it Robert or Richard, cant recall) cartoons about sin, in the form of a milk bottle which turns black and is turned white again by confessions, it was simplistic but I think it was biographical and a proper depiction of his understanding at the time.

Out of curiosity, how are you defining original sin? I have heard differences of opinion as to what it is.

 

[EvidenceOfRedemption]

I suppose you could do everything a Christian does and not believe this, I'm not sure. But, the whole expression of Christianity is very strongly rooted in original sin. The wretchedness of the sinner and the helpless need of redemption. The urgency of the need for those to be rescued from their flawed selves before they are lost to Hell. The taught inclination to deny one's own flawed and sinful instincts.

I disagree. See:

23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. (Colossians 2:23)

In fact, it is this tendency to try and manage one's own sin that is a legalistic loophole (and one which has no substance or real wisdom to it) where people can continue in it. It is still proud and disobedient to revel in the destitution of the sinner so much a person does not continue on to the sinner's salvation. This can lead you to be disqualified, because you'd stay stuck in a self-centered state... any state centered on self is still rooted in sin, it only seems humble but it isn't. How deceiving it is to focus on the sinner's destitution without recognizing the saving grace of Jesus.

18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility ... disqualify you. (Colossians 2:18)

Sin can only be handled in one way: Jesus' death on the cross. To know, with belief as strong as factual proof, that Jesus died once and for all for those who sin (that means you and me). This is how sin is taken care of, it's killed out right. When we try to deny our own sin nature, whether overtly (false humility) or covertly, we're only entertaining a state of denial which I'm sure many could tell you is completely ineffective.

If you think about it, it's a silly thing to believe. It's funny actually, the idea that we could saves ourselves by pretending we don't have a strong proclivity to sin. Truly recognizing the need for a savior eventually takes the focus off of the sinner, even the nature of the sinner's total destitution.


And just for the record, any expression of real Christianity is divinely rooted in Jesus Christ. It is sinners being divinely centered on Jesus, and being transformed by grace. It is not a doctrine of shame that denies the fact that sin, satan, and death was defeated by Jesus, and that it can be this way for all who are centered on Jesus through transformation by grace. It's not a sin-centered theology or one where the sinner is the center or lodestone of existence, as if sinner's made creation. This is why sin is fully recognized as sin, because the gospel of Christ kills the pride of man.

 

[Lark]

Out of curiosity, how are you defining original sin? I have heard differences of opinion as to what it is.

So have I, the definition which I associate with the RCC church is that everyone was damned by Adam's action, so everyone is born sinful and require baptism, most importantly, but other prescriptions for living, including sacraments, in order to have eternal life, rather than eternal damnation to hell. I dont like this idea because it kind of messes with my understanding of Jesus as an incarnation of God, how could he be born into a human vessel if all human vessels are damned? I mean human vessel as in human body, not trying to spark a debate about the immaculate conception or anything.

There is also predestination and election, which as I understand it involve being selected before birth to either belong to the damned or the saved, you never can tell, perhaps if you work hard and become rich its a sign that God favours you and you're one of the elect predestined to heaven. I dont like that idea because its too similar to the social exclusivity which I associate with the ethno-nationalist version of "choosen people" which Jesus was pretty explicit in rejecting.

I dont think that I accept the definition of original sin as an explanation for death, ie that were it not for each person being born with original sin we would all be immortal and live forever, I know that this is based upon the idea that Jesus born without sin and never being sinful did not die and would appear to have been indestructable like a movie monster, able to ressurect himself from the grave and fly up into the sky.

I do think that I can accept ideas of original sin to do with doubt, ie that original sin should really be called original doubt, basic anxiety or original mistrust, and I would accept that it behaves in those who are possessed by it, in the same way as psychologists have described attachment disorders, seperation anxiety or neurotic trends acting upon individuals personal growth and development or capacities to form relationships, although in a spiritual and not just temporal sense.

 

[A window to the soul]

IT stems from the Bible's account of the Fall of Adam, and afterwards, scripture's testimony that "There is none who does good. Every one of them has together become corrupt. There is none who does good; no, not one!" (Psalms 53:1-3, Romans 3:10ff) "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it? (17:9) "There is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin". (Ecclesiastes 7:20).

That's correct!

(It's refreshing to see truth.)

Sin can only be handled in one way: Jesus' death on the cross.

 

[Poki]

That's correct!

(It's refreshing to see truth.)

Thats kinda scary you see that as truth.

There is none who does good; no, not one!

There is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin.

They are saying 2 different things. It is basically saying nothing anyone ever does is "good" ...period. They then attempt to "correct" it by saying..and does not sin...which to me says...well they may do good, but not everything they do is good

Those are actually the reasons I dont follow religion or the bible. Its not refreshing to be looked down upon as if we "NEVER" do good. Should I really teach my child that? Your a failure in life...deal with it...but I still love you.

edit: I prefer the "good job, give me five" approach. But to each there own I also tell him when he screwed up and its something to work on.

 

[Lark]

I disagree. See:

23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. (Colossians 2:23)

In fact, it is this tendency to try and manage one's own sin that is a legalistic loophole (and one which has no substance or real wisdom to it) where people can continue in it. It is still proud and disobedient to revel in the destitution of the sinner so much a person does not continue on to the sinner's salvation. This can lead you to be disqualified, because you'd stay stuck in a self-centered state... any state centered on self is still rooted in sin, it only seems humble but it isn't. How deceiving it is to focus on the sinner's destitution without recognizing the saving grace of Jesus.

18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility ... disqualify you. (Colossians 2:18)

Sin can only be handled in one way: Jesus' death on the cross. To know, with belief as strong as factual proof, that Jesus died once and for all for those who sin (that means you and me). This is how sin is taken care of, it's killed out right. When we try to deny our own sin nature, whether overtly (false humility) or covertly, we're only entertaining a state of denial which I'm sure many could tell you is completely ineffective.

If you think about it, it's a silly thing to believe. It's funny actually, the idea that we could saves ourselves by pretending we don't have a strong proclivity to sin. Truly recognizing the need for a savior eventually takes the focus off of the sinner, even the nature of the sinner's total destitution.

Yeah, all that seems like far, far too passive a conception of mankind, God and Christianity.

I've never been a big, big fan of the "Jesus the sacrifice" version of scriptural events, it appears fatalistic in the extreme to suppose this, and I like to ask the question, well, if things were different could Jesus have not died and what would have happened then, what I think was important as a redemption of mankind was not the death on the cross but the life and ministry, fundamentally the teachings, and the meaning of those in view of the ressurection. Its not the dying but the living which is important, including the second, resurrected life. Lazerus was raised from the dead too so it was not just Jesus that this happened to.

That's so far as man goes, perhaps the dying was important to God too, he was apart from his creation and mankind until he was incarnate, he also experienced suffering and death first hand this way (which really should make the "problem of evil" people shut the hell up).

There are parallels with Abraham and Jacob, I know that, although God spared Jacob he didnt Jesus, he didnt do as Abraham, but I dont believe that God was big on that sort of sacrifice and mankind has been seriously mistaken from the time of Abraham in its dialogue with him in supposing that its requisite for sacrifice of that sort to happen. Imagine if you build something and by its own volition it brought itself down or collapsed every time you sat down to admire it?

 

[Lark]

Thats kinda scary you see that as truth.



They are saying 2 different things. It is basically saying nothing anyone ever does is "good" ...period. They then attempt to "correct" it by saying..and does not sin...which to me says...well they may do good, but not everything they do is good

Those are actually the reasons I dont follow religion or the bible. Its not refreshing to be looked down upon as if we "NEVER" do good. Should I really teach my child that? Your a failure in life...deal with it...but I still love you.

No, I dont think you should teach anyone that, I also dont think its the actual teachings of Jesus either. Which lets be honest superseded or at least contextualised all the rest.

 

[Totenkindly]

So have I, the definition which I associate with the RCC church is that everyone was damned by Adam's action, so everyone is born sinful and require baptism, most importantly, but other prescriptions for living, including sacraments, in order to have eternal life, rather than eternal damnation to hell. I dont like this idea because it kind of messes with my understanding of Jesus as an incarnation of God, how could he be born into a human vessel if all human vessels are damned? I mean human vessel as in human body, not trying to spark a debate about the immaculate conception or anything.

Well, I'm not sure how you can avoid triggering that discussion, just by bringing up the point... since the "out" is that Mary was human but Jesus was supposedly the divine seed of God rather than Joseph (i.e., he was born of both human and the divine... so he wasn't really "just human." )

But I'm thinking this is why some Catholics REALLY then try to cover all the bases and insist that Mary was sinless as well.

 

[EvidenceOfRedemption]

The way I understand is this. Man believe we can become God, we believe a lie, when God said eat that apple and you will die. Since, man did and still does die, as God doesn't lie. To bring myself back to connection with God, God had to reverse this lie, a man who actually was God had to come and die the death I deserve for my pride. But now He lives, because unlike me and you He actually is God, and God is eternal life, death (being, by definition, being apart from Him, who is eternal life) has no part in Him.

 

[Poki]

No, I dont think you should teach anyone that, I also dont think its the actual teachings of Jesus either. Which lets be honest superseded or at least contextualised all the rest.

I like that answer

 

[A window to the soul]

No, I dont think you should teach anyone that, I also dont think its the actual teachings of Jesus either. Which lets be honest superseded or at least contextualised all the rest.

But it is truth [and all scripture in the Bible is inspired by God].

Thats kinda scary you see that as truth.

They are saying 2 different things. It is basically saying nothing anyone ever does is "good" ...period. They then attempt to "correct" it by saying..and does not sin...which to me says...well they may do good, but not everything they do is good

Those are actually the reasons I dont follow religion or the bible. Its not refreshing to be looked down upon as if we "NEVER" do good. Should I really teach my child that? Your a failure in life...deal with it...but I still love you.

edit: I prefer the "good job, give me five" approach. But to each there own I also tell him when he screwed up and its something to work on.

Our faith produces good fruit because we have the Holy Spirit in us. Faithless men can brag all they want about the good things they do, but to God it's in vain without Jesus. The good of a faithless man will be judged as fruitless and those men as fools. On the surface it might look good to you, but it's not good to God (no matter how well intended).

This might also help clarify where I'm going with this...

I hope this helps...

Old Testament = Old Covenant = The Law = 10 Commandments = Condemnation = Judgement
New Testament = New Covenant = No Law = Holy Spirit = Grace = No Condemnation = No Judgement

We are not bound to the letter of the Law (10 commandments), not that the Law has any flaws, or is not good and perfect, but we are NOT good and perfect, and our Salvation comes by FAITH in Christ, and NOT our own adherence to the letter of the Law, because according to the Law, "everyone" is already condemned.

We are saved by FAITH, and our faith produces fruit, our works represent our faith, but none can be saved without Jesus Christ, and none can ever earn or deserve Salvation because we have ALL fallen short of the Glory of God, and we have ALL broken God's Law, for when you break ONE part of the Law, you break the WHOLE Law.

Once we broke it, the penalty for breaking the Holy Law of God is death, and we who have faith in Christ have already died to the Law in Christ when He died for our sins on the cross. He took our penalty of execution upon Himself. Now we are bought by God as servants to righteousness/holiness, not held to account for our sins because we have been PARDONED by God through our faith in His Son, our Savior, the Redeemer of the World.

So we live in a state of GRACE to the best of our ability (through the power of the Holy Spirit), remembering the sacrifice God made for us, while relying on him the entire time, to complete the work He started in us, according to His will and for His Glory, knowing that it is only by his sacrifice for us that we are saved.

 

[Mole]

Original Sin and Original Blessing

The sacrificial form of child rearing produces the paranoid personality, while the abusive form of child rearing produces the guilty personality.

And the guilty personality expresses itself in the doctrine of Original Sin.

Fortunately we have improved on the sacrificial and abusive forms of child rearing with the authoritarian form of child rearing which produces the controlling personality.

And even better, we have improved on the authoritarian form of child rearing with the helping form of child rearing which produces the empathic and creative personality.

So Original Sin is a remnant of the abusive form of child rearing, where the child is to blame from the very beginning at birth, and so develops a guilty personality.

So we might say the abusive form of child rearing is the original sin, and the helping form of chlld rearing is the original blessing.

We can find the History of Childhood by clicking on - http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/p1x22.htm

 

[Lark]

But it is truth [and all scripture in the Bible is inspired by God].

Well the original "scripture" or torah was actually the Jewish people, then Jesus expanded that to include all people during his ministry, I do believe that scripture is truth but its not stand alone truth, the parable of the vineyard owner explains this well, the vineyard owner sends messengers, finally his son, his message is ignored or misunderstand and they even kill the son.

If it were truth and easily understandable as such then Jesus would not have had to spend as much time teaching and reframing existing teachings, both he and his followers were at pains to describe how much of his life and ministry was about being a consistent and traditional jew, not until Paul when he started a serious break with traditions like circumcision did that change.

 

[Eric B]

The simplest way to translate the doctrine of sin to the nonreligious is that we all are imperfect (everyone will agree to that), and at the same time, have a tendency to act like we're not (self-righteousness).

While man's acknowledgement of imperfection shows that he has a sense of an ideal state we are not living up to, the ultimate measure of perfection was God's Law.
When held up to this standard, a lot of guilt was produced (which is what people hate the most about religion), and hence, all the condemnation.

But Christ died to pay the penalty, and thus end the Law's hold over us. Hence, He taught about a "soon" event that would mark the end of the covenant of Law. The Church did not recognize this event (the destruction of the Temple system) for what it was, and kept waiting for this "soon" event for 1900+ years and counting. Hence, they still teach condemnation byy Law, and have often profitted off of this.

 

[Snoopy22]

Through Adams actions the character of man (humanity was set), It’s also unique (to me) that sin did not enter the world until Adam committed sin, although Eve had already eaten of the apple.

 

[Coriolis]

The simplest way to translate the doctrine of sin to the nonreligious is that we all are imperfect (everyone will agree to that), and at the same time, have a tendency to act like we're not (self-righteousness).

While man's acknowledgement of imperfection shows that he has a sense of an ideal state we are not living up to, the ultimate measure of perfection was God's Law.
When held up to this standard, a lot of guilt was produced (which is what people hate the most about religion), and hence, all the condemnation.

So far, so good.

But Christ died to pay the penalty, and thus end the Law's hold over us. Hence, He taught about a "soon" event that would mark the end of the covenant of Law. The Church did not recognize this event (the destruction of the Temple system) for what it was, and kept waiting for this "soon" event for 1900+ years and counting. Hence, they still teach condemnation byy Law, and have often profitted off of this.

Now you lost me. This sounds so artificial and contrived. Why should it be so? How would it even work? Law will never lose its hold on us, but our understanding of that law changes, perhaps as humanity grows as a species. We had one understanding of the law from the OT, which Jesus revised in the NT. In a broader sense, it points to something like the Bahai idea of progressive revelation, that to every age and culture, God sends a messenger to repeat or re-present his truth in a way they can understand.

 

[A window to the soul]

Now you lost me. This sounds so artificial and contrived. Why should it be so? How would it even work?

What Eric B stated is truth. The pure gospel of Jesus does not mix Law with Grace. You get into contradiction and confusion when you try to mix Old Testament Law (and condemnation) with New Testament Grace. As [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] said, churches profit from mixing the two; for example, if you don't go to church on Sunday, you're breaking Old Testament Law.

The Old Testament deals with man according to the Law where the animal sacrifice shed blood was a temporary provision for forgiveness of sin. The New Testament deals with man according to God's grace through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

The shed blood sacrifice of Jesus IS the fulfillment of the old covenant Law, and IS the permanent provision for sin. For we who have faith in Christ have already died to the Law in Christ when He died for our sins on the cross. He took our penalty of execution upon Himself. We are bought by God as servants to righteousness, not held to account for our sins because we have been pardoned by God through our faith in Jesus.

Law will never lose its hold on us,

It's your choice. I'm under grace.