Original Sin

[Starets]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='19 October 2009 - 07:35 PM' timestamp='1255998943' post='1988047']
Any discussion of this question should FIRST begin with Romans 5:12-21 and from there, you build your theology. That's why Protestants continuously shake their heads at Catholics---as we watch you putting "philosophy" up on a pedastel, and the Bible doesn't even come into the equation. So now that you know where to look, will you do it???
Somehow, I doubt it. Your opinions are what count the most.
[/quote]

No, it should begin at the beginning because that's where it began. Please stop acting like a thin skinned punk on a bad barbell day, stop trying to wrap yourself in the mantles of Jesus Christ, St. Paul, and St. Stephen (they don't fit you anyway), remove the chip from your shoulder, empty yourself, and learn humility.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Staretz' date='19 October 2009 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1256004069' post='1988085']
No, it should begin at the beginning because that's where it began. Please stop acting like a thin skinned punk on a bad barbell day, stop trying to wrap yourself in the mantles of Jesus Christ, St. Paul, and St. Stephen (they don't fit you anyway), remove the chip from your shoulder, empty yourself, and learn humility.
[/quote]


"It should begin at the beginning because that's where it began".

Like is anyone supposed to know what THAT means?

I suggested going back to the Scriptures to find the answer, and of course I am handed a dunce cap. I'll say it again: You all are holding your opinions in higher esteem than the word of God, which is the very thing that you will be judged by per John 12:48. As for the assertion about needing to be more "humble", you know very well that if I only wrote ONE line and said "why not inquire at Romans 5", you would STILL find something derogatory to say just by my even suggesting it, so your advice to me to remove my "chip" has went in one ear and out the other. My way of speaking is meant to PROPEL you to find the answer in the Bible, but you may as well admit it, you're just not interested. I'd bet anything that even after this you still WON'T look up Romans 5 and see what it says. So in the end, it is you that needs the attitude adjustment.
As Jesus said, "YOU DO GREATLY ERR (Mr. STAREZ) not knowing the Scriptures."

Edited October 20, 2009 by Stormstopper

[Winchester]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='20 October 2009 - 01:32 AM' timestamp='1256016727' post='1988278']
"It should begin at the beginning because that's where it began".

Like is anyone supposed to know what THAT means?

I suggested going back to the Scriptures to find the answer, and of course I am handed a dunce cap. I'll say it again: You all are holding your opinions in higher esteem than the word of God, which is the very thing that you will be judged by per John 12:48. As for the assertion about needing to be more "humble", you know very well that if I only wrote ONE line and said "why not inquire at Romans 5", you would STILL find something derogatory to say just by my even suggesting it, so your advice to me to remove my "chip" has went in one ear and out the other. My way of speaking is meant to PROPEL you to find the answer in the Bible, but you may as well admit it, you're just not interested. I'd bet anything that even after this you still WON'T look up Romans 5 and see what it says. So in the end, it is you that needs the attitude adjustment.
As Jesus said, "YOU DO GREATLY ERR (Mr. STAREZ) not knowing the Scriptures."
[/quote]
It means start at Genesis, Albert.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='08 October 2009 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1255034310' post='1981153']
I do not believe that anyone is born sinful.

Adam, by his sin, made himself and all his descendants mortal, but mortality is not a punishment of God; instead, it is simply the consequence of Adam's failure, as the head of the human family, to rise to divine status through grace.
[/quote]


Not a word you say in your second paragraph can be verified by Holy Writ as I proved in my debate with Rapahel.

As for your first paragraph, alleging that you don't believe we are born sinful. OY VEY! First of all, your own church teaches at Trent and in your current catechism, exactly the OPPOSITE! Technically, you have no right to call yourself Catholic since you are in dire opposition to your own church, not to mention the Bible. David said that IN SIN DID MY MOTHER CONCEIEVE ME (Ps 51:5). This was no shame on his mother, but he was verifying that his very nature was sinful. And "from the womb, they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies" (Ps 58:3).
Moreover, man's natural, SINFUL nature comes down to this:
[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]"Men do not seek after God"; are "under the dominion of the world, the flesh and the devil"; are "by NATURE children of wrath"; "slaves to sin"; and were "without Christ and alienated....and without God in the world"; "do not even have the [u]ability[/u] to come to spiritual truth"; and are "DEAD in trespasses and sins" (Rms 3:11, Eph 2:2-3; Rms 6:17, Eph 2:12, John 6:44, Eph 2:1). [/color][/font]

[Winchester]

When it's good then it's good it's so good until it goes bad.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='pat22' date='08 October 2009 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1255033166' post='1981117']
but i DONT have the same choice as adam and eve. i was born into there damnation. i was born into a world of suffering
[/quote]

unfortunately, no one said everything was fair.

life smells of elderberries and then you die. but at least there are hamburgers, tacos, so very tasty and good for you, and pretty ladies on the way.

[Christie_M]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='20 October 2009 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1256019334' post='1988315']
unfortunately, no one said everything was fair.

life smells of elderberries and then you die. but at least there are hamburgers, tacos, so very tasty and good for you,, so very tasty and good for you, and pretty ladies on the way.
[/quote]
don't forget Church


and chocolate.

[Winchester]

How does it feel
to treat me like you do
when you laid your hands upon me
and told me who you are?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='19 October 2009 - 11:51 PM' timestamp='1256017870' post='1988293']
Not a word you say in your second paragraph can be verified by Holy Writ as I proved in my debate with Rapahel.

As for your first paragraph, alleging that you don't believe we are born sinful. OY VEY! First of all, your own church teaches at Trent and in your current catechism, exactly the OPPOSITE! Technically, you have no right to call yourself Catholic since you are in dire opposition to your own church, not to mention the Bible. David said that IN SIN DID MY MOTHER CONCEIEVE ME (Ps 51:5). This was no shame on his mother, but he was verifying that his very nature was sinful. And "from the womb, they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies" (Ps 58:3).
Moreover, man's natural, SINFUL nature comes down to this:
[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]"Men do not seek after God"; are "under the dominion of the world, the flesh and the devil"; are "by NATURE children of wrath"; "slaves to sin"; and were "without Christ and alienated....and without God in the world"; "do not even have the [u]ability[/u] to come to spiritual truth"; and are "DEAD in trespasses and sins" (Rms 3:11, Eph 2:2-3; Rms 6:17, Eph 2:12, John 6:44, Eph 2:1). [/color][/font]
[/quote]
Not a thing that you have said can be verified by holy writ. I reject your less than 500 year old interpretation of scripture.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='19 October 2009 - 11:51 PM' timestamp='1256017870' post='1988293']
OY VEY! First of all, your own church teaches at Trent and in your current catechism, exactly the OPPOSITE! Technically, you have no right to call yourself Catholic since you are in dire opposition to your own church, not to mention the Bible.
[/quote]
You clearly do not know what you are talking about, because I am not in opposition to my Church. I am Melkite Catholic and I follow the traditions of the Melkite Church, which has its own traditions, its own theology, its own liturgy, and follows the teachings of its own synods. Let the Roman Catholics be Roman Catholic, but I am not Roman Catholic; I am Byzantine Catholic, and so I follow the doctrine of the holy Fathers of the East.

[reyb]

[quote name='rkwright' date='08 October 2009 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1255035167' post='1981171']
For Nihil and His Child

From Trent
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT5.HTM


I think the bolded parts put emphasis on the teaching that we share more in Adams sin in just physical death and a tendency to sin.
[/quote]

Before you go too far to your discussion. Who told that you have 'original sin'? Who told you that you are born with evil spirit in your inner being. Can you please explain to us. Who told you that you are a sinner since birth?

Edited October 20, 2009 by reyb

[reyb]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='08 October 2009 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1255031803' post='1981097']
You [i]do[/i] have that chance. We all do.



We are born with Original Sin - you can say that we "inherited" Original Sin from Adam and Eve, our ancestors. Through Baptism, we are cleansed of this sin. Original Sin is not the same thing as regular sin (a Church Scholar can explain this one to you). And whether an individual receives Baptism or not, they still can choose between good and evil.
[/quote]

It is written in Ezekiel 18:20 (New International Version)

[b]20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.[/b]
-------------------------
How can you explain this if your idea of ‘original sin’ is correct?



I do not think, they understand Romans 5:12 (New International Version)
[b]
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned[/b]—
-----------
In the above verse, do you think it means original sin or it means ‘death’ came to all because all sinned.’

[reyb]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='08 October 2009 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1255031803' post='1981097']
You [i]do[/i] have that chance. We all do.



We are born with Original Sin - you can say that we "inherited" Original Sin from Adam and Eve, our ancestors. Through Baptism, we are cleansed of this sin. Original Sin is not the same thing as regular sin (a Church Scholar can explain this one to you). And whether an individual receives Baptism or not, they still can choose between good and evil.
[/quote]

It is written in Ezekiel 18:20 (New International Version)

[b]20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.[/b]
-------------------------
How can you explain this if your idea of ‘original sin’ is correct?
-----------------
I do not think, they understand Romans 5:12 (New International Version)
[b]
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned[/b]—
-----------
In the above verse, do you think it means original sin or it means ‘death’ came to all because all sinned.’ Of course, the problem here is 'Who is that Adam'?

Is Apostle Paul said 'Adam is our first parent'?

[Nihil Obstat]

The following is the best explanation of original sin I've ever heard.
From Cardinal Ratzinger.

[quote]In the Genesis story that we are considering, a further characteristic of sin is described. Sin is spoken of in general not as an abstract possibility but as a deed, as the sin of a particular person, Adam, who stands at the origin of humankind and with whom the history of sin begins. This account tells us that sin begets sin, and that, therefore, all the sins of history are interlinked. Theology refer to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term original sin. What does this mean? Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd that to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and God does not run a concentration camp in which one's relatives are imprisoned, because he is a liberating God of love who calls each one by name. What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?
Finding an answer to this requires nothing less than trying to understand the human person better. It must once again be stressed that no human being is closed in upon himself or herself and that no one can live of or for himself or herself alone. We receive our life not only at the moment of birth but every day from without- from others who are not ourselves but who nonetheless somehow pertain to us. Human beings have their selves not only in themselves but also outside of themselves: they live in those whom they love and in those who love them and to whom they are present. Human beings are relational, and the possess their lives- themselves- only by way of relationship. I alone am not myself, but only in and with you am I myself. To be truly a human being means to be related in love, to be of and for. But sin means the damaging or destruction of relationality. Sin is a rejection of relationality because it wants to make the human being a god. Sin is loss of relationship, a disturbance of relationship, and therefore, it is not restricted to the individual. When I destroy a relationship, then this event- sin- touches the other person involved in the relationship. Consequently sin is always an offense that touches others, that alters the world and damages it. To the extent that this is true, when the network of human relationships is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters into a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment when a person begins human existence, which is a good, he or she is confronted by a sin-damaged world. Each of us enters into a situation in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is, from the very start, damaged in relationships and does not engage in them as he or she ought. Sin pursues the human being, and he or she capitulates to it.
But from this it is also clear that human beings alone cannot save themselves. Their innate error is precisely that they want to do this by themselves. We can only be saved- that is, free and true- when we stop wanting to be God and renounce the madness of autonomy and self-sufficiency. We can only be saved- that is, become ourselves- when we engage in the proper relationship. But our interpersonal relationships occur in the context of our utter creatureliness, and it is there that the damage lies. Since the relationship with Creation has been damaged, only the Creator himself can be our savior. We can be saved only when he from whom we have cut ourselves off takes the initiative with us and stretches out his hand to us. Only being loved is being saved, and only God's love can purify damaged human love and radically re-establish the network of relationships that have suffered from alienation.[/quote]

[InHisLove726]

[quote name='pat22' date='08 October 2009 - 03:07 PM' timestamp='1255028866' post='1981047']
So the first poeple were created by god. They had a perfect life, the animals obeyed them, no sickness, ECT... but they sinned and all that went away, then god promised a savior.

so after jesus came why didn't we get all that back?

why did the desendents(such as us) of the first poeple have to pay for their ansestors crimes?

and how come they didn't ever get a chance to re-earn all that was lost?


please dont quote the CCC or something like that unless its CONVINCING arguement or beleivable.

i need logic arguements, not faith ones.
[/quote]

The reason none of that disappeared is because God gave us the gift of free will. When Adam and Eve made the choice to sin and not listen to God's commandments, that was an exercise of their free will. When Jesus came as Savior, He didn't force people to believe in Him. He allowed people to choose to believe He was the Savior God promised our ancestors. God is the God of love. He is not forceful.

We do gain what was originally lost by our baptism. The Catholic Church teaches that baptism cleanses the original stain of sin. It doesn't make us perfect, but it makes us united with Christ, the Savior.

I choose to look at this way:

If Adam and Eve had not committed the first sin, there would be no need for Jesus, hence, we would not have the Christian faith. And we would not know what a truly miraculous, loving God we have.

Edited October 23, 2009 by InHisLove726