Among other things, there is one certain thing about Christianity that doesn't make sense to me and I am always hoping for a Christian or someone else to address it, so I can understand it.
Why would an omniscient, loving God who already knows that billions will refuse his word and go to hell would still allow them to be born and go to hell?
Banned
For christianity, sin arises from the nexus with Father for a child.
Hence it is the father and not god who makes a child to fall in hell. If the child continues to go with sin bestowed upon it, it surely falls in hell, else, gets salvaged by some good samaritan kind of person.
This sin bestowed upon child through father is traced back to original sin.
Now sectarian beliefs in christianity starts after this original sin topic, and this is not a forum for this, I do not want to make a comment.
Jai shree krishna
In your seva...
Namaste,Originally Posted by ramkish42
Nice response. I didn't know that christians thought like this i.e. human father is the maker so god is not responsible for child's sin.
Christians also believe in 'soul'. Who creates this soul? surely not the human father. God must have some part in the creation of a new human otherwise all this looks like an experiment gone bad.
Also, why are you hesitant ot make a comment about the original sin? I would love to hear it so please feel free.
satay
But, didn't God know that the original sin was going to take place?
Banned
The idea of Jesus being born without a father revolves around this principle. As such, every father bestows sin on a new born child. As the sin cumulated, Father of Jesus - original god, thought of writing it off, but it required some punishment as per laws made already. As sins cannot be written off from a man who has sin occured already, divine intervention made jesus born without a human father, thus was born free of sin.
It is believed that he never accumulated any sin after his birth, hence his blood was enough to purify sins of all.
The idea of original sin was a surprise to lord as per catholics and was pre-planned for protestants.
Some (Greek and Latin School esp) do not believe in Original sin being lingering on even now. They insist this has been wiped off by blood of jesus, on the contrary, Much importance is attached to this original sin by catholics & Protestants.
The divine prohibition was made to give adam and eve choice of free will and it is said that they choose what was prohibited hence occured sin as per orthodox judaism
Though Judaism views the serpent involved in the story as Evil/satan, neo Judaism does not feels so. According to neo Judaism, it is said to be transgressions of Eve, this suggests the opposite view held by Christians attaching sin to Woman. Though sounding Logical, Chrisitian emphasis that Adam responsibility for not falling into such temptations had been breached and it is adam who ate the fruit hence, sin transmigrated and bestowed through fathers
This view however is fully condemned by Gnostist. They believe the serpent is indeed Jesus. It is Jesus to liberate human possessed the serpent and made eve to tempt Adam thus this event is seen as divine interference to liberate humans. However, how being on this earth is fully bliss and liberation is yet to be explained beyond doubt by Gnostist
Also we have absolute book of stupidity from middle east which drives Osama bin Laden, never susbcribes eve being part of this temptation.
There is another group that believes this story is metaphor and compare fruit of the tree to sexual intercourse
Catholics:
"As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence")." Catechism of Catholic church - 418
For catholics, this is personal sin, this is a state and not an act. This is deprivation of holiness transmitted, however, adam and eve are fully excluded from their personal guilt. This further changed to CONCUPISENCE (I am not sure about the spelling, it could be scence also) which is not original sin but state of deprivation rose out of original sin. Catholic Church always held the view that Baptism in always a remedy to this. This is the reason it seems behind baptising children.
Though St. Augustine views are different, still catholics subscribe to this.
Eastern Orthodox Schools:
They accept the story and deny original sin as anscestral. They acknowledge that this has changed the way the reality of this cosmos
Protestants:
Protestants fully subscribe to this thought of original sin, they believe it this a worst calamity, complete deprivation from God (Calvinist esp). The idea of all humans inheriting this sin arose from Adam who represented the human race as head
Few later moments like Seventh day adventist and reformation schools has rejected the idea however the debate is still on. Restoration movement has clearly rejected this idea of inheritance but accept that he has depraved us of great powers
It would seem that original sin is not believable, and for the following three reasons.
First of all, not only is the doctrine intolerably paradoxical, it is never once mentioned, as such, in the Bible, not even where it is taken to be most evident: in chapter 3 of Genesis and chapter 5 of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans.
Second, our(Should say MY) understanding of both evolution and biblical science makes it even more obvious than before how far from the intent of the biblical authors was any doctrine of original sin (careful exegesis of Romans 5, for example, has led many scholars to hold that Augustine developed his view of original sin based on a mistranslation by the Vulgate of a verse in this chapter of Paul’s Letter to the Romans).
Third, the doctrine damages souls. Belief in original sin leads to pessimism: it results in a resigned fatalism about changing those sinful structures that actually can be changed but which go unchallenged because they are all too lazily attributed to the effects of original sin, which by definition is a given and cannot be changed. It is to be noted the book of fear (Koran) does not susbcribe to this.
To put in the words of Reinhold Niebuhr - "The Christian doctrine of sin in its classical form offends both rationalists and moralists by maintaining the seemingly absurd position that man sins inevitably and by a fateful necessity but that he is nevertheless to be held responsible for actions which are prompted by an ineluctable fate. . . . Here is the absurdity in a nutshell (, I have made this statement bold and added an icon, rest is pure citation). Original sin, which is by definition an inherited corruption, or at least an inevitable one, is nevertheless not to be regarded as belonging to his essential nature and therefore is not outside the realm of his responsibility. Sin is natural for man in the sense that it is universal but not in the sense that it is necessary"
Off late, interpretation given to Genesis 1-3 has changed the way Roman 5 being interpretted. History has given clear proof has to change of opinion in St. Augustine. Evolution, as such, indicates man is growing in his glory, which is exactly opposite of what St. Augustine has suggested.
The Psalmist added fuel by saying: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5). As a mother conceives through the father, this saying acts as proof for those who reject the idea of original sin, however, this seems out of context neither being in Genesis nor in Roman. But that is how christians operates - Bible has to interpretted as whole book.
For a good christian who believes in origian sin I recommend www.jonathanedwards.com/text/osin/osin.htm by Jonathan Edwards. This is huge book for a non christian, hence giving you the link. Hope he had answered my doubts saving the second one. As the books seems to written around 18th century, one cannot expect the idea of original sin being fully answered refuting Darwinian theory.
I am not sure whether "Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil", this man has eschewed which evil
All said and done, It seems Creation as said in bible cannot co-exist wit evolution.
Hope for best
Banned
I am a wrong person to answer this query.
Many christians believe that this original sin is cooked up by Paul and Augustine, still many advocate this.
Jai shree krishna
Banned
Good point. He cannot be all at the same time i.e loving, omniscient and omnipotent.
On a more practical level my openion is, God has been dragged unwillingly into a human conspiracy to form a powerful politcal organization which uses his name to blackmale and dominate other humans.
Since God is not omnipotent (Karma) such things happen from time to time in human society
How does karma make God not omnipotent?
sagefrakrobatik
The divine prohibition was made to give adam and eve choice of free will and it is said that they choose what was prohibited hence occured sin as per orthodox judaism
Though Judaism views the serpent involved in the story as Evil/satan, neo Judaism does not feels so. According to neo Judaism, it is said to be transgressions of Eve, this suggests the opposite view held by Christians attaching sin to Woman. Though sounding Logical, Chrisitian emphasis that Adam responsibility for not falling into such temptations had been breached and it is adam who ate the fruit hence, sin transmigrated and bestowed through fathers
Acutally according to Jewish theology, Adam and Eve were not in trouble for eating the Forbidden Fruit but they were in trouble for hiding it from God. I will see if i could dig up some jewish sources on this.
Its interesting to note that the Hebrew text renders a completely different version.
The Psalmist added fuel by saying: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5). As a mother conceives through the father, this saying acts as proof for those who reject the idea of original sin, however, this seems out of context neither being in Genesis nor in Roman. But that is how christians operates - Bible has to interpretted as whole book.
"It was in my youth that I committed inequity," this suggest that sin is not heriditary but voluntary.
There are handful of rightgeous kings mentioned in Chronicles.I am not sure whether "Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil", this man has eschewed which evil
Hope for bes
"My spiritual father is Swami Vivekananda" Canibus
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks