Original Sin question

[Bradski]

Warned? By whom? When and where? If we would KNOW, really KNOW what the end result would be if we did not follow the commandments, if we would be given a SAMPLE of the suffering to experience ourselves, then no sane person would make that “choice”. No one chooses suffering.

The threat of hell would seem to discount free will. At least, free will as I would understand it.

Let’s say the state government decided that they had had enough of speeding drivers and they ramped up the penalty. Now, instead of demerit points on your license and a fine, the penalty is…death. If you exceed the limit by just 1 kph then you are taken to a place of execution and publicly hung, drawn and quartered. The Harbour bridge is festooned with the heads of those who thought that this might be some kind of joke.

Does it make any sense to then say that you have a free will choice to speed? I wouldn’t even drive anywhere, just in case. I don’t think that anyone would.

Yet consider the punishment for a mortal sin. Not a simple it’ll-be-over-shortly session with the State Torturer. This is ETERNAL torment. If it’s debatable that we lose free will if the choices are so abhorrent as to render them effectively meaningless, then hell, being the ultimate deterrent, not just a lifetime of torment but an ETERNITY of torment, must mean zero free will.

So people would not speed under any circumstances whatsoever, but good God fearin’ Christians will steal, murder, cheat, lie, fornicate and masturbate to their hearts desire. Something not right with the system somewhere.

As Sol says, if there were some sort of confirmation about the punishment in store, then we’d all be as good as gold. Like the heads on the Harbour Bridge immediately stop everyone from speeding.

And if you say you’d still have free will if the penalty of speeding was death, even after showing you the consequences, then you must agree that you’d still have free will if God gave you a peek at what might await you if you continue being a naughty boy.

 

[susanlo]

The very basis of Christianity is the original sin upon which the crucifixion of Jesus is justified. If original sin were thrown away, then the crucifixion would become a meaningless happening.

Church history shows the doctrine of original sin is a distinctly Christian doctrine first expounded upon by Augustine. The original sin concept has NO basis in Judaism, and Judaism completely rejects it. Therefore this teaching seems to be a distinct phenomena of Christianity which was developed to strengthen the other developing ideas of the Roman Church concerning who Jesus was and what his purpose was for mankind. Original sin is vital to Christian theology but not relevant in Jewish theology which precedes it. Is original sin a fact??

Jesus Taught That Little Children Are Without Sin. Original or otherwise? Look it up.

Children Have No Knowledge Of Good And Evil At Birth. The Bible teaches that children cannot be sinners and guilty and condemned at birth, for they do not yet know the difference between good and evil, and have not yet come to the “age of accountability” Look it up.

No Man Can Be Guilty For A Sin He Did Not Commit. Look it up.

The Bible says that man is guilty for his own sins and for his own sins alone. He is not guilty, and cannot be guilty, for the sin of Adam or any other man. Look it up.

The Bible teaches that every sin is a free and voluntary act. There is no involuntary sin. Man must will evil and choose evil before he can be a sinner. He cannot be born a sinner, for he has no choice in his birth. The idea that man can be a sinner without a voluntary act of his own will is completely contrary to the Bible. Man must voluntarily choose evil before he can be a sinner. Its in the book.

However it was Augustine of Hippo who, in the fifth century (354-430), was largely responsible for transforming Paul’s teachings on the Fall into the doctrine of Original Sin, teaching as he did that man is born into this world in a state of sin. Why do we believe his opinion ??

One would think that if Adam’s transgression had such a monumental effect on all future generations it would at least be mentioned in the account. Yet, nowhere in the Old Testament is it explicitly stated that Adam’s sin was passed down. In fact, the silence in the book of Genesis is deafening. All we are told is that, in view of Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Good and Evil, God did not want them to also partake of the Tree of Life, and live for ever (Genesis: 3:22), therefore He banished them from the garden (Genesis: 3:23). The man was cursed with having to work for food and the ground that was also cursed would hand him thorns and thistles (Genesis: 3:17-19). The woman was cursed with great pain in childbirth (Genesis: 3:16). Not a single word is breathed about this original sin being put upon Adam’s descendants. Are we to believe that God forgot to mention the most devastating consequence of all as it effects us?

I can see how some have a hard time accepting Original Sin as a fact. Any opinions?

A lot of Christians do not accept Original Sin. At least not the Doctrine of Original Sin. They would believe that humans inherited a sinful nature, but babies are not born stained. Beliefs in original sin are what cause some churches to baptize infants and other churches not to.

 

[Lucretius]

A lot of Christians do not accept Original Sin. At least not the Doctrine of Original Sin. They would believe that humans inherited a sinful nature, but babies are not born stained. Beliefs in original sin are what cause some churches to baptize infants and other churches not to.

This seems to be a misunderstanding of what it means s to be stained. To be stained means to lack sanctifying Grace, which all Christians accept (some even deny the possiblity of sanctifying Grace)

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Solmyr]

I don’t understand what you are trying to say? You say that God should come down and tell us how to avoid hell, and when I point out that He did do this, you basically assert that it doesn’t count

I know that you believe this, but there is NO evidence that it happened. It is sheer mythology.

There is nothing impossible about performing the necessary manifestation to each and every human, in the form that is sufficient for THAT human to accept (tailoring the lesson to the individual). I am afraid that the next remark will be something like: “so you demand that God should jump through hoops, just to convince you”… or something equally inane. But, basically, yes. If God would want us to get to him, and to do that there are certain do’s and don’t’s we must perform, then he absolutely MUST enlighten each and every one of us. No “outsourcing” to third parties (church), no questionable ancient writs (bible).

IF, of course that is really what God wants. But there is no sign of that. Not to mention that the simple and easy way would be to create each of us directly into his presence, so we could all enjoy the beatific vision.

 

[Lucretius]

I know that you believe this, but there is NO evidence that it happened. It is sheer mythology.

I gave you my reasons, and they are rather rational Asserting there is no evidence is foolish, you can’t ant just discount the evidence in such a way.

There is nothing impossible about performing the necessary manifestation to each and every human, in the form that is sufficient for THAT human to accept (tailoring the lesson to the individual). I am afraid that the next remark will be something like: “so you demand that God should jump through hoops, just to convince you”… or something equally inane. But, basically, yes. If God would want us to get to him, and to do that there are certain do’s and don’t’s we must perform, then he absolutely MUST enlighten each and every one of us. No “outsourcing” to third parties (church), no questionable ancient writs (bible).

IF, of course that is really what God wants. But there is no sign of that. Not to mention that the simple and easy way would be to create each of us directly into his presence, so we could all enjoy the beatific vision.

Actually, my response is more interesting: God does one step better, and manifests in our very hearts. But our sins and pride blind us from the presence of the Spirit.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[MT1926]

I know that you believe this, but there is NO evidence that it happened. It is sheer mythology.

It seems you have made up your mind on the Bible and don’t even accept it as historical evidence of anything. Do you also refuse to accept the historical evidence of the civil war or the holocaust?

I am afraid that the next remark will be something like: “so you demand that God should jump through hoops, just to convince you”… or something equally inane. But, basically, yes. If God would want us to get to him, and to do that there are certain do’s and don’t’s we must perform, then he absolutely MUST enlighten each and every one of us. No “outsourcing” to third parties (church), no questionable ancient writs (bible).

IF, of course that is really what God wants. But there is no sign of that. Not to mention that the simple and easy way would be to create each of us directly into his presence, so we could all enjoy the beatific vision.

Never even entered my mind to say that because I realize that is exactly what you expect God to do.

My question is do you honestly believe it would make a 100% difference?

Not sure how old you are or if you have kids or not, but I have 5, and can honestly say, watching my kids and dealing with the general public daily, it wouldn’t. You keep forgetting about human nature.

Let’s say God goes ahead and does exactly what you want. Now the age of reason is said to be between 7 and 11 years old, so I would think God should give his speech at 11 years old before we develop to many bad habits. Here is the kicker though, you are against the use of a church and the bible therefore we have no way of getting weekly or even annual updates, so by your rules it is a one and done and the responsibility is now on our shoulders. Also, keep in mind now that you got the word directly in his presence, at the age of 11, you are now responsible for every word he has said, the most minor of sins and you fall into hell. No longer can you fall back on ignorance of what is and isn’t sin. Let’s be honest here, how many people including you and me would be able to keep 100% of his word every minute of every day for the next 80 years? In my opinion 1% would be a little high. What % do you think is reasonable?

 

[susanlo]

This seems to be a misunderstanding of what it means s to be stained. To be stained means to lack sanctifying Grace, which all Christians accept (some even deny the possiblity of sanctifying Grace)

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I don’t exactly understand “stained” and I do believe there are slight variations of how grace is understood in Catholicism from what I and other non-Catholics were taught.

However, many Christians do believe that babies are born innocent until they become aware of right and wrong and inevitably choose sinful behavior. They don’t believe there is guilt from Adam, but a shared tendency to sin.

 

[Solmyr]

It seems you have made up your mind on the Bible and don’t even accept it as historical evidence of anything.

No, it does not SEEM so. Do you accept the “testimony” of Mohammed using a winged horse as a means of transportation?

Let’s say God goes ahead and does exactly what you want. Now the age of reason is said to be between 7 and 11 years old, so I would think God should give his speech at 11 years old before we develop to many bad habits.

Why do you think it should be a one-off attempt? If someone asks God to come and explain something, why does God turn a deaf ear to this request?

But of course the optimal solution would be to create everyone DIRECTLY into God’s presence so everyone could enjoy the beatific vision.

 

[MT1926]

No, it does not SEEM so. Do you accept the “testimony” of Mohammed using a winged horse as a means of transportation?

No because I haven’t found any historians speak of Mohammed the way they do the Bible.

The Bible has proven to be more historically and archaeologically accurate than any other ancient book. It has been subjected to the minutest scientific textual analysis possible to humanity and has been proven to be authentic in every way.

After many millions of man-hours of research and evidence analysis, archaeology has repeatedly confirmed the reliability of the Bible. The Bible has been proven geographically and re-proven historically accurate, in the most exacting detail, by external evidences.

Just do an internet search for “Is the bible historical evidence”. There are a ton of websites, even non-catholic/christian sites that agree the bible is of historical value.

Why do you think it should be a one-off attempt? If someone asks God to come and explain something, why does God turn a deaf ear to this request?

I think it is unreasonable when my kids ask me what needs done, every time I ask who did the barn work tonight. Especially when there is a list on the kitchen counter. Why wouldn’t I think it is unreasonable to expect God to constantly have to keep reminding us of what we need to do? Especially when he left us a church.

I don’t know, maybe you are not opening your heart and mind. He has spoken to me, it was amazing because what he said would not have entered my mind in a million years.

But of course the optimal solution would be to create everyone DIRECTLY into God’s presence so everyone could enjoy the beatific vision.

I know you don’t agree with the Bible, but he has already been there and done that. It didn’t work. He realized we need to make our own choice and he didn’t want to force us to be with him. I do the same thing with my own kids. Just sent out a group text that I will be going to hear Chris Padget speak next Friday and I would love it if my family was there with me. I’m not going to force them, but whoever comes will probably get ice cream after.

 

[Solmyr]

No because I haven’t found any historians speak of Mohammed the way they do the Bible.

Is this a “numbers” game? And maybe you did not dig deep enough. The point is that you don’t believe some ancient texts and accept others… with the same reason that I discard the bible… you find it inadequate, just like I do.

Just do an internet search for “Is the bible historical evidence”. There are a ton of websites, even non-catholic/christian sites that agree the bible is of historical value.

Undeniably there many pieces in the bible that have INDEPENDENT corroborations. But that is irrelevant for those parts which have none. There is no independent source to affirm walking on water, resuscitating dead corpses (zombies, anyone?) or feeding thousands of people… Today we have more than a few thousands of starving children… where is Jesus today? And don’t say that WE are to feed them. No excuse to “outsource” the feeding to others.

I don’t know, maybe you are not opening your heart and mind.

Ah, so it is AGAIN it is I who is blamed for the lack of communication. What else is new, my friend?

I know you don’t agree with the Bible, but he has already been there and done that. It didn’t work. He realized we need to make our own choice and he didn’t want to force us to be with him.

Why not? Isn’t it in OUR best interest to be with God? Now, if we would experience the beatific vision, and STILL would reject it, that would be a different issue. But, of course, if someone experiences the beatific vision, their ability to reject it would be nullified, their free will would be overridden, not by force… but by the sheer joy of experiencing God first hand… and what is wrong with that?

 

[MT1926]

Is this a “numbers” game? And maybe you did not dig deep enough. The point is that you don’t believe some ancient texts and accept others… with the same reason that I discard the bible… you find it inadequate, just like I do.

Undeniably there many pieces in the bible that have INDEPENDENT corroborations. But that is irrelevant for those parts which have none. There is no independent source to affirm walking on water, resuscitating dead corpses (zombies, anyone?) or feeding thousands of people… Today we have more than a few thousands of starving children… where is Jesus today? And don’t say that WE are to feed them. No excuse to “outsource” the feeding to others.

Ah, so it is AGAIN it is I who is blamed for the lack of communication. What else is new, my friend?

Why not? Isn’t it in OUR best interest to be with God? Now, if we would experience the beatific vision, and STILL would reject it, that would be a different issue. But, of course, if someone experiences the beatific vision, their ability to reject it would be nullified, their free will would be overridden, not by force… but by the sheer joy of experiencing God first hand… and what is wrong with that?

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but if you disagree with the Bible and feel God is unfair and unjust in his reasoning why are you wasting your time on a Catholic website that discusses the bible and God? I am not trying to be smart with this I honestly want to know your motivation.

Thanks

 

[Bradski]

Also, keep in mind now that you got the word directly in his presence, at the age of 11, you are now responsible for every word he has said, the most minor of sins and you fall into hell. No longer can you fall back on ignorance of what is and isn’t sin.

This makes no sense to me. Sol is suggesting that God makes Himself known in no uncertain terms so that those who are not enlightened will know the results of sin. And therefore not sin. With full use of their ‘free will’. And you suggest that if a child is given this specific enlightenment at age 11 it will be impossible for him not to sin during his life.

But you already know the wages of sin. You are already enlightened as to God’s will. You don’t need Him to make Himself known to you in no uncertain terms. So where is the difference? As well as the child, you yourself cannot fall back on ignorance of what is and what isn’t sin.

If you say it’s not going to work for the child, then you are admitting that it isn’t working for you.

 

[Lucretius]

Is this a “numbers” game? And maybe you did not dig deep enough. The point is that you don’t believe some ancient texts and accept others… with the same reason that I discard the bible… you find it inadequate, just like I do.

Undeniably there many pieces in the bible that have INDEPENDENT corroborations. But that is irrelevant for those parts which have none. There is no independent source to affirm walking on water, resuscitating dead corpses (zombies, anyone?) or feeding thousands of people…

But why do you find them inadequate? What does independent corroborations even mean? All records of Caesar, and all records of Alexander, are by that person’s culture: does that mean they aren’t independent? This seems like one of those bad arguments that can be used to dismiss any historical event, at a whim.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Solmyr]

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but if you disagree with the Bible and feel God is unfair and unjust in his reasoning why are you wasting your time on a Catholic website that discusses the bible and God? I am not trying to be smart with this I honestly want to know your motivation.

Thanks

I have several motivations. One is to learn how other people think, especially those who are fully rational when it comes to worldly affairs, but check their rationality into the cloak-room when entering their own place of worship. Of course they also keep their rationality when entering the places of worship of another religion.

As the old joke says.

Q: Who are the members of a religious cult?
A: Those people who attend the church next to yours.

 

[MT1926]

This makes no sense to me. Sol is suggesting that God makes Himself known in no uncertain terms so that those who are not enlightened will know the results of sin. And therefore not sin. With full use of their ‘free will’. And you suggest that if a child is given this specific enlightenment at age 11 it will be impossible for him not to sin during his life.

Sorry for the confusion. I might be misunderstanding where he is going with this. I understood Sol to want God to come down and explain all things to him personally. I wasn’t suggesting it would be impossible for someone to sin I was suggesting that this personal revelation would make one that much more responsible for their sin.

Basically, let’s say I am your employer and ask you to go do a job. You bring me the results and I say that is not what I wanted. Since I gave no specific instructions, in all fairness I say go do it again. Now let’s say I showed you what I wanted done and told you what to do and how to do it. You walk away and say to yourself I have a better and faster way of doing it and end up bringing me something that I did not want. Are you still gonna have your job?

But you already know the wages of sin. You are already enlightened as to God’s will. You don’t need Him to make Himself known to you in no uncertain terms. So where is the difference? As well as the child, you yourself cannot fall back on ignorance of what is and what isn’t sin.

I am not really sure what you are asking here but I will give it a shot. As I mentioned above no amount of enlightenment can make it impossible for us to sin, I was saying the greater the amount of enlightenment from God would mean the greater the responsibility to keep from sinning from us. Therefore, perfect enlightenment from God, which is what Sol is suggesting, would mean perfect responsibility to keep from sinning from us. I guess the difference, of why I can claim partial ignorance, is I accept the fact that I am a fallible human being and freely admit that I do not know all that God knows. I am not aware of his plan for my future or the future of the world. Which is in my opinion what you would need to know, the future, in order to avoid sinning. Which is what Sol is suggesting when he says

Now, if we would experience the beatific vision, and STILL would reject it, that would be a different issue. But, of course, if someone experiences the beatific vision, their ability to reject it would be nullified, their free will would be overridden, not by force… but by the sheer joy of experiencing God first hand… and what is wrong with that?

Sol wants to know what God knows before making a choice.

If you say it’s not going to work for the child, then you are admitting that it isn’t working for you.

This question fits in with where I am going above about being more responsible for your sins. What I was trying to logically explain is if God where to show us the perfection of what lies ahead so we could see it first hand at the age of 11. This would make us now responsible for our own salvation. Just like the employer above showing exactly what he wants from the employee. Then God throw us back down into this sinful world to fend off sin on our own. How many would be able to fend off the sin and temptations of this world for 80 years to remain perfect to finish the race on the path God told you to remain on? I can honestly say I wouldn’t, which is why I choose to trust in him instead of myself.

Thanks for the questions

 

[MT1926]

I have several motivations. One is to learn how other people think, especially those who are fully rational when it comes to worldly affairs, but check their rationality into the cloak-room when entering their own place of worship. Of course they also keep their rationality when entering the places of worship of another religion.

I am all for trying to learn how others think and what motivates them. Thus the reason I asked the question. But in all honesty the same thing could be said about you not accepting the Bible as a historical document. Mind you I said historical not religious.

Also, is it rational to come to a Catholic website and make quotes like:

As the old joke says.

Q: Who are the members of a religious cult?
A: Those people who attend the church next to yours.

(zombies, anyone?)

And don’t say that WE are to feed them. No excuse to “outsource” the feeding to others.

Just seems a little irrational to me that someone would talk like this and expect others to take him seriously.

God Bless

 

[grannymh]

I don’t exactly understand “stained” and I do believe there are slight variations of how grace is understood in Catholicism from what I and other non-Catholics were taught.

However, many Christians do believe that babies are born innocent until they become aware of right and wrong and inevitably choose sinful behavior. They don’t believe there is guilt from Adam, but a shared tendency to sin.

It is my understanding, from years ago, that the word “stained” referred to the State of Original Sin. Regardless of the adjective used, the State of Original Sin is what is transmitted by propagation. It is a contracted state and not a state of guilt for Original Sin.

Grace comes from God and leads us to good. The term for this grace is actual grace. Because we are in the image of God we are called to share in God’s life. This is known as the State of Sanctifying Grace.

The tendency to sin is one of the results occurring when Adam deliberately shattered humanity’s relationship with Divinity.

I realize that my answers to your valid questions may be too brief. If you need to know more about them, please ask.

 

[OneSheep]

It is my understanding, from years ago, that the word “stained” referred to the State of Original Sin. Regardless of the adjective used, the State of Original Sin is what is transmitted by propagation. It is a contracted state and not a state of guilt for Original Sin.

Grace comes from God and leads us to good. The term for this grace is actual grace. Because we are in the image of God we are called to share in God’s life. This is known as the State of Sanctifying Grace.

The tendency to sin is one of the results occurring when Adam deliberately shattered humanity’s relationship with Divinity.

I realize that my answers to your valid questions may be too brief. If you need to know more about them, please ask.

Hi Granny,

Great to see that you are still kickin’!! I pray you have been well.

Perhaps you could explain the “tendency to sin.”

Blessings!

 

[OneSheep]

The very basis of Christianity is the original sin upon which the crucifixion of Jesus is justified. If original sin were thrown away, then the crucifixion would become a meaningless happening.

Hi laocmo,

Why would it become meaningless?

Blessings!

 

[susanlo]

It is my understanding, from years ago, that the word “stained” referred to the State of Original Sin. Regardless of the adjective used, the State of Original Sin is what is transmitted by propagation. It is a contracted state and not a state of guilt for Original Sin.

Grace comes from God and leads us to good. The term for this grace is actual grace. Because we are in the image of God we are called to share in God’s life. This is known as the State of Sanctifying Grace.

The tendency to sin is one of the results occurring when Adam deliberately shattered humanity’s relationship with Divinity.

I realize that my answers to your valid questions may be too brief. If you need to know more about them, please ask.

Thank you for your answer. I do find the concept of Original Sin confusing. I believe there are 2 parts. All Christians believe that infants are born with a tendency to sin (like Adam sinned) as they become old enough to make these choices. Some Christians believe that babies are born guilty(stained?) by Original Sin and are in need of baptism to wash away this sin. Baptizing an infant will not take away their tendency towards sin as they get older, but they will be forgiven for the sin contracted from Adam. Is this a correct understanding? What is the term for the guilt/sin that a child is born with from Adam?