Original Sin - Born bad

awareness · 10-21-2022, 06:52 AM

Judaism does not see human nature as tainted by some sort of original sin.

When did it come into being?

Early Christianity had no specific doctrine of original sin prior to the 4th century. Children were considered sinless. Babies can't be born bad.

“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” Matthew 19:14

Sin was originally considered to be individual, not universal.

Why not original blessing?

So when, where, and by whom did original sin originate?

Wiki has a good coverage of it :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

Trapped · 10-23-2022, 12:17 AM

I don't know the details of it's origins, but I don't hold to it anymore.

I just spent a couple hours reading various articles on the topic, and yeah, many, many apparently seasoned Christian websites make a bold proclamation that "we sin because are born sinners", and reject the thought that "we are born sinless, at some point we sin, and at that point become a sinner".

But there are way too many problems with the "born sinner" doctrine, and very, very few problems of the "born uncondemned and at some point commit a sin" viewpoint.

"Adam sinned, therefore you are born guilty". Excuse me?

"Adam sinned, therefore you are born with an inherent sin nature by which you cannot help but sin, and God judges you for it." Excuse me?

"Adam sinned, and his nature changed into a sin nature, you know...even though the Bible records no such 'nature change'." Excuse me?

The way some talk about it they seem to think disobeying God caused a DNA-level change in Adam.

And yet Satan sinned and as a spiritual being did not have DNA to bear the effects.

A shocking number of articles waive the implications of the doctrine aside by saying, "this may not seem fair to you, but no matter, God provided a way out." But this is clearly a total cop out. God is supposed to be just and righteous. It becomes pretty important on this one to square His righteousness up with this doctrine.

It's like, if I was falsely charged with a crime and brought before a court and someone paid the fine for me, I wouldn't say, "oh no problem about the false criminal charge, someone paid it for me." I would still stand there and say, "No, no, no, hold on. I never did this in the first place. The court cannot falsely accuse me of something I didn't do." And yet well-known Christian sites present this very scenario as if it's ok.

The biggest problem, for me, with original sin, is that if we are all born sinners even at 2 days old, then the Bible is lying when it says Jesus was made like us in every way. If Jesus was born with a fundamentally different nature than we, where He has an inherently sinless nature and we have an inherently sinful nature, then in one of the most important ways, He was most certainly not made like us in every way.

It is only if we all are born with a regular human (not sinful) nature, the same type that Adam had, the same type that Eve had, the same type every human has, and the same type that Jesus had......that Jesus being tempted and yet not sinning carries any meaning at all.

awareness · 10-23-2022, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

I don't know the details of it's origins, but I don't hold to it anymore.

I just spent a couple hours reading various articles on the topic, and yeah, many, many apparently seasoned Christian websites make a bold proclamation that "we sin because are born sinners", and reject the thought that "we are born sinless, at some point we sin, and at that point become a sinner".

But there are way too many problems with the "born sinner" doctrine, and very, very few problems of the "born uncondemned and at some point commit a sin" viewpoint.

"Adam sinned, therefore you are born guilty". Excuse me?

"Adam sinned, therefore you are born with an inherent sin nature by which you cannot help but sin, and God judges you for it." Excuse me?

"Adam sinned, and his nature changed into a sin nature, you know...even though the Bible records no such 'nature change'." Excuse me?

The way some talk about it they seem to think disobeying God caused a DNA-level change in Adam.

And yet Satan sinned and as a spiritual being did not have DNA to bear the effects.

A shocking number of articles waive the implications of the doctrine aside by saying, "this may not seem fair to you, but no matter, God provided a way out." But this is clearly a total cop out. God is supposed to be just and righteous. It becomes pretty important on this one to square His righteousness up with this doctrine.

It's like, if I was falsely charged with a crime and brought before a court and someone paid the fine for me, I wouldn't say, "oh no problem about the false criminal charge, someone paid it for me." I would still stand there and say, "No, no, no, hold on. I never did this in the first place. The court cannot falsely accuse me of something I didn't do." And yet well-known Christian sites present this very scenario as if it's ok.

The biggest problem, for me, with original sin, is that if we are all born sinners even at 2 days old, then the Bible is lying when it says Jesus was made like us in every way. If Jesus was born with a fundamentally different nature than we, where He has an inherently sinless nature and we have an inherently sinful nature, then in one of the most important ways, He was most certainly not made like us in every way.

It is only if we all are born with a regular human (not sinful) nature, the same type that Adam had, the same type that Eve had, the same type every human has, and the same type that Jesus had......that Jesus being tempted and yet not sinning carries any meaning at all.

Mar 1:4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

John the Baptist baptized Jesus. Was it for his remission of sin? God forbid!

But it's absurd that babies are born bad. Jesus didn't act that way:

Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Allow the little children to come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of Heaven.

Ohio · 10-26-2022, 09:58 PM

The development of original sin coincided with infant baptism. If babies are born with sin nature or original sin, then we better baptize them before they die.

But since they were too young to receive the sacraments, Limbo was created for children who died young.

Trapped · 10-28-2022, 10:24 AM

I mean the first couple chapters in the Bible are all we need to know that you don’t need to have an inherited sin nature in order to sin. Adam and Eve sinned before their supposed nature change or before they were considered “fallen”. They sinned when they were in a sinless state. This doesn’t mean God created them unable to obey or created them to fail. He just gave them the ability to choose. Same as we have.

10-21-2022, 06:52 AM	#1
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Original Sin - Born bad Judaism does not see human nature as tainted by some sort of original sin. When did it come into being? Early Christianity had no specific doctrine of original sin prior to the 4th century. Children were considered sinless. Babies can't be born bad. “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” Matthew 19:14 Sin was originally considered to be individual, not universal. Why not original blessing? So when, where, and by whom did original sin originate? Wiki has a good coverage of it : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

10-23-2022, 12:17 AM	#2
Trapped Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 1,523	Re: Original Sin - Born bad I don't know the details of it's origins, but I don't hold to it anymore. I just spent a couple hours reading various articles on the topic, and yeah, many, many apparently seasoned Christian websites make a bold proclamation that "we sin because are born sinners", and reject the thought that "we are born sinless, at some point we sin, and at that point become a sinner". But there are way too many problems with the "born sinner" doctrine, and very, very few problems of the "born uncondemned and at some point commit a sin" viewpoint. "Adam sinned, therefore you are born guilty". Excuse me? "Adam sinned, therefore you are born with an inherent sin nature by which you cannot help but sin, and God judges you for it." Excuse me? "Adam sinned, and his nature changed into a sin nature, you know...even though the Bible records no such 'nature change'." Excuse me? The way some talk about it they seem to think disobeying God caused a DNA-level change in Adam. And yet Satan sinned and as a spiritual being did not have DNA to bear the effects. A shocking number of articles waive the implications of the doctrine aside by saying, "this may not seem fair to you, but no matter, God provided a way out." But this is clearly a total cop out. God is supposed to be just and righteous. It becomes pretty important on this one to square His righteousness up with this doctrine. It's like, if I was falsely charged with a crime and brought before a court and someone paid the fine for me, I wouldn't say, "oh no problem about the false criminal charge, someone paid it for me." I would still stand there and say, "No, no, no, hold on. I never did this in the first place. The court cannot falsely accuse me of something I didn't do." And yet well-known Christian sites present this very scenario as if it's ok. The biggest problem, for me, with original sin, is that if we are all born sinners even at 2 days old, then the Bible is lying when it says Jesus was made like us in every way. If Jesus was born with a fundamentally different nature than we, where He has an inherently sinless nature and we have an inherently sinful nature, then in one of the most important ways, He was most certainly not made like us in every way. It is only if we all are born with a regular human (not sinful) nature, the same type that Adam had, the same type that Eve had, the same type every human has, and the same type that Jesus had......that Jesus being tempted and yet not sinning carries any meaning at all.

10-26-2022, 09:58 PM	#4
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,693	Re: Original Sin - Born bad The development of original sin coincided with infant baptism. If babies are born with sin nature or original sin, then we better baptize them before they die. But since they were too young to receive the sacraments, Limbo was created for children who died young. __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

10-28-2022, 10:24 AM	#5
Trapped Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 1,523	Re: Original Sin - Born bad I mean the first couple chapters in the Bible are all we need to know that you don’t need to have an inherited sin nature in order to sin. Adam and Eve sinned before their supposed nature change or before they were considered “fallen”. They sinned when they were in a sinless state. This doesn’t mean God created them unable to obey or created them to fail. He just gave them the ability to choose. Same as we have.