Your thoughts on original sin?

[Dino246]

Yes but the word "original" gives rise to possibility another as in non- original. Two kinds of sin . Two kinds of wages to represent sin .

What the Catholic must call mortal and venial . dividing the one wage.... with one they can work for in a place called purgatory, as a law of their fathers (a law of men)

You're making things up and inventing connections where there are none.

Ok, where does Christ inform us to separate original sin from sin non original sin, mortal from venial, white lies from real lies?

I think it was Catholisim making things up and inventing connections where there are none, in order to make scripture without effect .

Are you trusting purgatory or limbo to take away the non original sin?

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

You made up the idea of "non-original sin" and ran with it in the earlier post. When I called you on it, you flipped it and accused the Catholics (that's called 'dodging responsibility') and then you turned and accused me. Then you quote a verse which you think is somehow relevant to your accusation of me.

Let's get back on topic, shall we?

 

[Hungry]

I think in order for anybody to truly understand anything, we need to stop being so rigid in our preconceptions. Words are used to convey thoughts. If we can’t properly define what thought that word represents then language will continue to be a stumbling block to knowledge and understanding. That’s why you need to properly analyze what sin is. Sin is a thought or action outside of God’s design. That is why homosexuality is a sin. Since sex is for procreation this act is in violation of design. All sex voiding procreation is sinful. Do you see oral and anal sex performed in nature? Just like our body, nature is designed to be balanced. The genetically gifted survive and weak are eliminated. Whether there was a tree in a garden is not the message. It is a story to convey the message. The knowledge of “good and evil” is being sentient. We have the capacity to understand how our actions can bring us good or bad. We act on OUR thoughts not GODS thoughts. Sin causes GUILT. This is the FRUIT of the knowledge of good and evil. God created us with the ability to hear Him but this is hampered by our conscience. Guilt separates us from God, and forgiveness restores us. If you look at the Bible as abstract instead of so literal you can see how this explains everything. This is why they sacrificed animals, to get forgiveness, elongate guilt, we must forgive others, eliminates guilt. We follow the Commandments, to not experience guilt. This is how eating meat sacrificed to idols can be “sin” for one and not the other, because it creates guilt. Same with honouring special days. Jesus was hardest on the religious leaders because they caused people to feel guilt. This is why the Law brought death, Romans 7, it’s not the act. It’s the knowledge that the act is wrong that brings guilt. Guilt is the separator. This is how Christ unites us and how faith is so important. His death was a perpetual sin offering. It doesn’t eliminate sin, it eliminates GUILT. This allows us to be in constant communication with the Almighty, SO WE CAN SERVE HIM.

The parable of the sower wasn’t given so we would understand how to be better farmers. If you want to believe that Adam was created from dirt, and then He used DNA from him to make Eve, that they lived in a garden with “magical” trees, and devious snakes, fine, but don’t look at just the superficial story. Understanding is granted to those who probe deeper. We are not separated from Adam eating fruit. We are separated because our intellect provides us the choice to violate the design of God, and our flesh is all to eager to do so.

 

[Deade]

Come on guys, you can do better than this. It was practically spelled out for us. I believe the fruit of both trees have a physical and a symbolic component to them. And yes, the fruit actually opened their eyes. God knew they would partake and He knew they had before He even asked. Their guilty consciences made them aware of their nakedness.

What the symbolism boils down to is defining the original sin. That is deciding right from wrong, or good and evil if you will, for themselves instead of trusting God. I believe that was Satan's sin also. He probably said something like why is this evil, just because God says so? Not trusting God's truths is what leads to unbelief.

So, by God imputing us all sinful right from the start meant He didn't have to wait until we actually sinned. Which we would eventually. That was very clever of God, imputing sin to Adam's descendants so He would only have to rescue us once.

Rom. 5:12-14: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

Here is the justification:
Rom. 5:18,19: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

God is in the process of ridding the universe of evil. He is demonstrating how evil will end things in the long run. Satan and the fallen angels started this, but God is going to finish it while showing us a few things. When it is all done, God is going to prove we should have listened to His decision of what is good and what is evil.

 

[jimd]

Come on guys, you can do better than this. It was practically spelled out for us. I believe the fruit of both trees have a physical and a symbolic component to them. And yes, the fruit actually opened their eyes. God knew they would partake and He knew they had before He even asked. Their guilty consciences made them aware of their nakedness.

What the symbolism boils down to is defining the original sin. That is deciding right from wrong, or good and evil if you will, for themselves instead of trusting God. I believe that was Satan's sin also. He probably said something like why is this evil, just because God says so? Not trusting God's truths is what leads to unbelief.

So, by God imputing us all sinful right from the start meant He didn't have to wait until we actually sinned. Which we would eventually. That was very clever of God, imputing sin to Adam's descendants so He would only have to rescue us once.

Rom. 5:12-14: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

Here is the justification:
Rom. 5:18,19: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

God is in the process of ridding the universe of evil. He is demonstrating how evil will end things in the long run. Satan and the fallen angels started this, but God is going to finish it while showing us a few things. When it is all done, God is going to prove we should have listened to His decision of what is good and what is evil.

At least you got the scripture references right : )

 

[garee]

You made up the idea of "non-original sin" and ran with it in the earlier post. When I called you on it, you flipped it and accused the Catholics (that's called 'dodging responsibility') and then you turned and accused me. Then you quote a verse which you think is somehow relevant to your accusation of me.

Let's get back on topic, shall we?

What the opposite of original if it is not plagiarized, copied, counterfeit, or duplicated.?

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

 

[glf1]

What the opposite of original if it is not plagiarized, copied, counterfeit, or duplicated.?

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Hey! garee... PTL!
imo, if there has to be an original sin, then it would have to be found in Is 14:12-14. When the evil one said, "I will be like the Most High," ect...

 

[garee]

Hey! garee... PTL!
imo, if there has to be an original sin, then it would have to be found in Is 14:12-14. When the evil one said, "I will be like the Most High," ect...

What's PTL?

And why not simply call it sin .What the purpose of adding the word original. Who did Satan copy seeing God has no form?

What the opposite of original if it is not plagiarized, copied, counterfeit, or duplicated.?

 

[Jewel5712]

Original sin? It stinks!

 

[calibob]

What's PTL?

And why not simply call it sin .What the purpose of adding the word original. Who did Satan copy seeing God has no form?

What the opposite of original if it is not plagiarized, copied, counterfeit, or duplicated.?

You're kidding right? I used to work for the PTL show. PRAISE THE LORD!

 

[Dino246]

What the opposite of original if it is not plagiarized, copied, counterfeit, or duplicated.?

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

What makes you think there is any such thing as "plagiarized, copied, counterfeited or duplicated" sin in the first place?

All other sin is secondary to, consequent to and resultant from original sin.

Your Scripture quotation, as usual, is irrelevant.

 

[Dino246]

You're kidding right? I used to work for the PTL show. PRAISE THE LORD!

Unfortunately, I don't believe he is joking. His tangents have tangents.