Original Sin

[guanophore]

I believe that church doctrine is superceded by the Bible. The church does not supercede anything. The bible guides the church not the other way around.

These beliefs are what define you as a protestant.

Now please tell me what oral traditions you are talking about. Point out the versus so I may look them up. Where do you think the oral traditions came from? They came from the Bible.

One of those traditions is that Mary was born without original sin.

You have it backwards. The Sacred Tradition preceeded the NT by several decades at least, and the Bible reflects what was in that Sacred Tradition. There are no Catholic teachings that contradict the Bible. Both threads of divine revelation came from the same Source.

15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

What is Paul referring to above? The Bible. Not interpretations of the Bible by the church. What they taught is what is written in the Bible.

The NT was not written at the time. They taught the Gospel that was taught to them by Christ. Jesus did not write. He preached. He taught the Apostles to preach. He commissioned them to go and preach. What Paul is saying in this verse is that the Sacred Oral Tradition is of equal importance as the written Tradition (the letters).

One more clarification. I didn’t leave the church because I rejected doctrine. I don’t know any Catholic who agrees with all church doctrine.

You said you left because you did not agree with the teachings. the teaching of the Church is the doctrine.

The church I attend now is non-denominational. Not Protestant.

If you reject the Apostolic teaching authority appointed by Christ, you are a Protestant. You identified yourself that way by listing your beliefs. No one said anything about your church. It was you, and your comments that were identified as protestant.

We don’t align with any denominations. 80% of the church is Catholic. 8 out of every 10 new members is Catholic. Why? Because they disagree with how the church changes doctrine all the time. That’s the number 1 reason. Most also stated that they never read the Bible and when they did they found it to be inconsistent with Catholic church doctrine. Things like Mary and the Pope. This is a church that has over 3500 members and is growing like crazy.

One last thing. Forgive me if I sound bitter. I don’t actually mean to be. Sometimes these forums make it tough to gauge a person’s demeanor.

If they reject the teaching of the Church, they are no longer Catholic. They have become Protestants.

 

[Steel_Arrow]

I have a question. God gives us a soul/spirit, right? Genesis says that He breathed His spirit into Adam. God is spiritual and lives in a spiritual place (heaven), right? God being perect/sinless, is unable to co-exist with sin, right? So, if God and his spiritual/heavenly creations are perfect and sinless, whom may ask puts the stain of sin on an infants soul?

The Bible says that every man will stand in judgement for his works on earth. An infant, having no concept of right or wrong, is unable to sin. Repentence is required of all prior to dying, because the Gospel has been delivered to them and they know what they have to do.

Therefore, Original Sin, as a basis of arguing that the paradse that God created for us, was taken away and mortality took the place of immortality. The concept that a perfect spiritual entity as a gift from God, is somehow made less perfect/spoiled by being born from human flesh is ridiculous. :tiphat:

 

[thistle]

I have a question. God gives us a soul/spirit, right? Genesis says that He breathed His spirit into Adam. God is spiritual and lives in a spiritual place (heaven), right? God being perect/sinless, is unable to co-exist with sin, right? So, if God and his spiritual/heavenly creations are perfect and sinless, whom may ask puts the stain of sin on an infants soul?

The Bible says that every man will stand in judgement for his works on earth. An infant, having no concept of right or wrong, is unable to sin. Repentence is required of all prior to dying, because the Gospel has been delivered to them and they know what they have to do.

Therefore, Original Sin, as a basis of arguing that the paradse that God created for us, was taken away and mortality took the place of immortality. The concept that a perfect spiritual entity as a gift from God, is somehow made less perfect/spoiled by being born from human flesh is ridiculous. :tiphat:

God exists and sin exists (all of us are sinners) so what do you mean God and sin cannot co-exist?

 

[mercygate]

I have a question. God gives us a soul/spirit, right? Genesis says that He breathed His spirit into Adam. God is spiritual and lives in a spiritual place (heaven), right? God being perect/sinless, is unable to co-exist with sin, right? So, if God and his spiritual/heavenly creations are perfect and sinless, whom may ask puts the stain of sin on an infants soul?

The Bible says that every man will stand in judgement for his works on earth. An infant, having no concept of right or wrong, is unable to sin. Repentence is required of all prior to dying, because the Gospel has been delivered to them and they know what they have to do.

Therefore, Original Sin, as a basis of arguing that the paradse that God created for us, was taken away and mortality took the place of immortality. The concept that a perfect spiritual entity as a gift from God, is somehow made less perfect/spoiled by being born from human flesh is ridiculous. :tiphat:

I think this is basically a good question – if I understand it.

Catholic teaching actually is that Original Sin is not a “stain” but an absence of perfect will. Man, as created by God, is without Original Sin. So “human flesh” in its origin is not the problem. Unmolested by the unfortunate incident with the serpent in the garden, man (in human flesh) would have continued in his growth towards the fullness of his “image and likness” to God. Christ makes that restoration possible.

Original Sin damages the free will – without which man cannot love.

I have a feeling this doesn’t quite address your point, but I am a little unclear on what your point is.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The question was asked how the parents of john the baptist could be both sinners nd righteous.

that is quite easy to understand. The scriptures say that "the righteous man falls seven times a day’.

What does that mean?

A righteous person can indeed sin venially without sinning mortally.

So John the Bptist could have had Righteous parents that sinned venially and were subject to original sin which gave them an inclination towards sin.

Mary did n’t have that inclination and Jesus didn’t have it either.

There’s a bg difference between the two.

 

[Clovis]

There are darker things in Christianity, it could even be said that suffering is the only way to the truth. When Christ replied to Pilate, ‘You would have no power over me unless it was given from above, so it is He who has the greater sin.’ It is very possible that the father is the one with the greater sin and not Judas nor Pilate, and he himself is the true ‘son of perdition’. Though this hardly goes into the understanding of why Christ still loves the father. The father also should be taken symbolically, not necessarily representing The God who we call Omnipotent, as when God claimed to Adam and Eve, when they had eaten the forbidden fruit, ‘They are like us now.’, How could that actually be so, unless God himself felt the desire of Evil with death ever closer approaching just as men and women have since the beginning?

 

[mercygate]

There are darker things in Christianity, it could even be said that suffering is the only way to the truth. When Christ replied to Pilate, ‘You would have no power over me unless it was given from above, so it is He who has the greater sin.’ It is very possible that the father is the one with the greater sin and not Judas nor Pilate, and he himself is the true ‘son of perdition’. Though this hardly goes into the understanding of why Christ still loves the father. The father also should be taken symbolically, not necessarily representing The God who we call Omnipotent, as when God claimed to Adam and Eve, when they had eaten the forbidden fruit, ‘They are like us now.’, How could that actually be so, unless God himself felt the desire of Evil with death ever closer approaching just as men and women have since the beginning?

Clovis, what are you smoking?

 

[Clovis]

Clovis, what are you smoking?

I’m smoking Halfzware Shag!

 

[mercygate]

I’m smoking Halfzware Shag!

Well – you’re a good sport. I apologize for my snarky comment.

Barista! Double latte espresso with whipped cream for my friend Clovis: on me!

 

[Clovis]

Clovis, what are you smoking?

I’m smoking Halfzware Shag!

http://img.deremate.cl/user/images/1670/16706913.jpg

 

[Clovis]

I think I’ll bow out of this discussion as its hard to get a straight answer to questions.
Can you not give me a YES or NO answer. Is it your view that the Church and the best theologians over the past 2000 years do not know best what original sin is?

Sorry for not responding sooner. Yes I do think Catholicism the greatest, but like anything human, it is still human, that is all that I meant. When a person sufficiently tastes art he is ‘as a dead man’ from then on, whether the art be philosophy or music or choreography, heck who am I kidding, especially choreography! Has anyone ever wondered why The Thinker sits on top of Rodin’s Gates of Hell? (It enough to make you **** your pants!)

 

[GuanYuWarGod]

God being perect/sinless, is unable to co-exist with sin, right? So, if God and his spiritual/heavenly creations are perfect and sinless, whom may ask puts the stain of sin on an infants soul?

An analogous statement to that would be something like :

“The sexy, beautiful Miss Universe contestants CANNOT EVER EXIST and DID NOT EVER EXIST because there are many women in the world with bodily imperfections.”

“Windows 95 CANNOT EXIST AND DID NOT EVER EXIST because I have Windows XP.”

Do you already see why it is fallacious to think such?

So, if God and his spiritual/heavenly creations are perfect and sinless, whom may ask puts the stain of sin on an infants soul?

Ahem. Perfection in the sense that these creations are relatively perfect. NEVER AN ABSOLUTELY INFINITE PERFECTION. If you must inquire as to why God cannot create things greater than or equal to Himself I have an answer but I don’t think you are looking for that at this present time?

The stain of sin is that stain of the natural imperfection of our free will (without which we cannot love) caused by Original Sin and its effects. It is probably impossible to miss the effects of Original Sin in man considering that only human beings on this Earth are capable of such destruction and cruelty unfound in other organisms.