pkk36438@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Polygon) (04/23/91)
Were Adams and Eve born to be bad? No. However, they decided to do something that was against the God's wish. It was reason that they were seperated from God. Are human born to be bad? No. However, people decided to do things against the God's wish or whatever, then they become evil. Rightness and wrongness must involve a decision or a choice. If people behave involuntarily, they are not responsible for what they do in the sense of morality. (The laws may tell you a different story, which is out of my scope.) If we have to be evil, then how can God, if there is such God, blame us for being evil? If God decided to let people born to be bad, then Original Sin is of God's wish and should not be considered evil. One may argue that the presense of Jesus Christ makes all the differences. I agree because Jesus made it clear that what's right and what's wrong. ( The words "right" and "wrong" are vague. For the sake of arguement here, I let them undefined since everyone should catch what I mean in this case.) It means people had to act in the way they were before they knew Jesus. If they elected to stay in the way they were, they became evil because, according to Christianity, they made a wrong or bad choice. So we see that morality involves free will and a revealed standard for measurement. Is a baby born to be evil? No. It's because he/she has not have a chance to make a choice-- for better or for worse. When he/she is able to make a choice, he/she may or may not responsible for his/her act depending on how his/her moral standard is established. Some standards can be universalized and some cannot be. It will be morally valid to judge a person when he/she makes a choice and selects a scale or standard of morality. In conclusion, the concept of Original Sin cannot stand because it is against God's wish. Unless I misinterpret the concept of Original Sin, I believe that my arguements are justified. At last, I want to make it clear that I am not trying to challenge any authority. If you find my agruement misleading, you are very welcome to correct me. But, please, don't flame it.
Frank.Farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) (04/25/91)
In article <Apr.23.03.17.48.1991.2576@athos.rutgers.edu>, pkk36438@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Polygon) writes: >Were Adams and Eve born to be bad? No. However, they decided to do something >that was against the God's wish. It was reason that they were seperated from >God. > >Are human born to be bad? No. However, people decided to do things against the >God's wish or whatever, then they become evil. The idea whether a man is born to sin or not has always intrigued me. You have asked the question, "Are human born to be bad?". Your answer was, no. However, if I look at what supporting facts we have for your answer, than I must admit that I have none. The pure fact is that *all* man has sinned, and came short of the glory of God. *All*, except one, who was perfect. How many people was born to date? I would say, may be 10 billion, and not one, with the exception of Jesus Christ, has been without sin. Now, I could argue that small children are sinless, and if they died before the age of accountability, they died innocent. But lets ignor that controversial issue. The point is that if man would have a *real* choice, at least some would remain sinless. The fact that none does, indicates to me that the choice is really not there at all. So, what does this do to Christian beliefs? I personally believe that the issue here is not whether we sin or not, but the fact that we have the capacity to recognize that we do. Once we do recognize it, than we become liable to do something about it. The law of repentence is available to all of us, and through the atonment of Christ in our behalf, we can be made clean, to experience rebirth into the kingdome of God. These are the basic laws which govern progress, and by which we eventually can reach perfectness, or in other words a sinless state. 1. We have the capacity to understand that we are sinful 2. We have the law of repentence. 3. We have a Savior by whose atonement we can be forgiven, and by him we can be perfected. Once the spiritual *rebirth* has taken place, we no longer sin. John has clearly taught this doctrine. I John 3:9 ========== "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." Some food for taught. With brotherly love, Frank
ejprosser@ucdavis.edu (Eric J. Prosser) (04/25/91)
>Were Adams and Eve born to be bad? No. However, they decided to do something >that was against the God's wish. It was reason that they were seperated from >God. ok >Are human born to be bad? No. However, people decided to do things against the >God's wish or whatever, then they become evil. I disagree. >In conclusion, the concept of Original Sin cannot stand because it is against >God's wish. Unless I misinterpret the concept of Original Sin, I believe that >my arguements are justified. At last, I want to make it clear that I am not >trying to challenge any authority. If you find my agruement misleading, you are >very welcome to correct me. But, please, don't flame it. I thought Sin entered into the world when Adam & Eve ate the fruit. Because of this, God cursed them. God hates sin! All sin has to be punished, thereforeGod cursed man. Keep looking at scripture. Read Romans. Chapter 3 talks about no one being righteous, not even one. All are under sin. This all happened in the beginning when man fell. A question might arise about an infant who dies, does that child go to heaven or hell? I don't know for a fact, but from what I have read in scripture, it seems to me that God judges the heart that can make a decision. Infants can't make decisions. That's as far as I can go because I just don't know. Anyone else have thoughts on this? Eric Jon Prosser ejprosser@ucdavis.edu I&P Computing Services (916) 752-2906 University of California, Davis
brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (04/25/91)
In <Apr.23.03.17.48.1991.2576@athos.rutgers.edu> pkk36438@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Polygon) writes: >In conclusion, the concept of Original Sin cannot stand because it is against >God's wish. Unless I misinterpret the concept of Original Sin, I believe that >my arguements are justified. The concept of Original Sin stands, even though it is against God's wish. You do not understand the concept, and sadly, since the point of Christianity is so tightly entwined with Original Sin, I fear for you understanding of Christ's sacrifice and what it has achieved. The Garden of Eden story tells us that God created humanity in His own image to live within His love and wisdom. However humanity chose instead to seek its own wisdom, to decide its own way, morality, ethics etc. Because God loves us He did not destroy us for our arrogance, instead He set us apart for His wisdom so that we might pursue our own way. Since we are made in God's image the only way to perfection lies within God's wisdom, which is removed from our worldly existence. The main trouble with this situation is that no one could achieve perfection without God's Wisdom. Thus God sent His only Son to be our Way back to the Wisdom of God. It only through Faith in Christ that we may return to the state of perfection which is God's will for each of us. -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.
gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) (04/29/91)
Eric Prosser writes:
----------------------------------------
I thought Sin entered into the world when Adam & Eve ate the fruit.
Because of this, God cursed them. God hates sin! All sin has to be
punished, thereforeGod cursed man. Keep looking at scripture. Read
Romans. Chapter 3 talks about no one being righteous, not even one.
All are under sin. This all happened in the beginning when man fell.
----------------------------------------
Actually God didn't curse them. He said, ``Cursed be the ground
because of you.''
It might be better if we were clearer about the word `sin.' There are
at least three words in the bible translated as sin, two in the New
Testament and (I speak from ignorance here) at least one in the Old.
The way I see it, the Fall had the effect of separating man from God.
It was (and is) this separation which, in my mind, constitutes what
some are calling `original sin.'
The effects of this separation are so radical that humans are
powerless to overcome them. This is how I interpret the doctrine of
`total depravity' -- we are powerless to save ourselves from the
effects of our separation from God. The obvious sign of this is
physical death, which nobody avoids. However, this seperation
actually expresses itself in the totality of our being, so that our
ultimate end is not simply physical death, but total alienation from
everything and everyone.
But the emphasis in the bible is that God acted from his side, and
rescued us because he loves us.
The interesting thing, to me, is that the two words in the New
Testament for sin are `transgression' and, for lack of a better word,
`shortcoming'. In the one case, we are talking about a particular
action, like breaking the Law of Moses. In the other case, I imagine
that the emphasis is on something that springs from our nature,
something that in one sense we can't help.
I think this latter thing is interesting because one might ask, ``Why
does God hold us responsible for something we can't help?'' Well,
when I think about it, I realize that I am more likely to judge myself
over something I can't help than over something I can do something
about. That is, I will say something like ``I could do better, I'm
not really like that,'' when I transgress, but when I have to say, ``I
couldn't help it,'' I realize that the situation is hopeless. It's
this helpless hopelessness that we need to be rescued from and that
God has in fact come to rescue us from. (The transgression type of
sin, in my mind, springs from the interaction of the Law, God's static
picture of moral rightness, with our nature, which can't help not
living up to that picture.)
To say that `God hates sin' and `sin has to be punished' is, in my
mind, to oversimplify. Rather than saying ``God hates sin,'' it seems
clearer to me to say that God doesn't like the way the world, shaped
by our autonomous rejection of him, has turned out, and he refuses to
acquiesce in it. Rather than saying `sin has to be punished,' it
seems more accurate to say that sin has consequences. These
consequences are ultimately totally destructive.
We can use David's adultery with Bathsheeba as an illustration how God
treats sin. In my mind, God punished David to allow him, and Israel,
to escape the consequences of his sin, and to produce repentance and
reconciliation. If we look at Psalm 51, we see a picture of the
effects David's judgement had on him. David agreed with God, and the
result was that he submitted to God's judgement which involved what we
would call punishment. But this punishment was not proportional to
the crime; David was not killed; the kingdom did not perish in a
welter of jealousy and murder. Instead, David was punished in such a
way as to bring home to him the seriousness with which God treaded his
crime, yet which nevertheless cast him back on God in repentance and
faith. This is how God wants to deal with evil.
--
-Fred Gilham gilham@csl.sri.com lindborg@deer.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (04/29/91)
In article <Apr.24.23.15.29.1991.10977@athos.rutgers.edu> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes: >The Garden of Eden story tells us that God created humanity in His own image >to live within His love and wisdom. However humanity chose instead to >seek its own wisdom, to decide its own way, morality, ethics etc. >Because God loves us He did not destroy us for our arrogance, instead He >set us apart for His wisdom so that we might pursue our own way. For those who believe in a hell (not the "kinder gentler" hell being touted these days, but the good old fire and brim-stone stuff of my childhood) it would seem to be a much nicer fate to be merely destroyed as opposed to suffering for eternity. It seems ironic that you would say that your god was thinking in a loving way when he let the human race continue. It seems to me it would have been a better option to just not let Adam and Eve procreate and the sin and pain would have stopped there. Maybe start over again with a "new and improved" human model. Later he tries (and fails, again) to do just this with the flood, murdering thousands of people (according to the bible, anyway). Something tells me the product testing division in heaven was not doing its job when humans rolled off the line... > Since >we are made in God's image the only way to perfection lies within God's >wisdom, which is removed from our worldly existence. So we're sort of left on our own to figure this stuff out. And if we don't do it right (ie worship the wrong god(s)/universal powers, none at all) we "loose" and go to hell. Don't sit there and tell me that anything related to religion or Christianity is clear to those who will look... the very existence of this board goes to disprove that. Practicing Christians can't even agree on large numbers of issues related to the Bible and the practice of their religion. If God were truly just and wise he would have been a little clearer and MUCH more straight forward about such weighty matters. Why all the mystery and such? What is there to hide? Why not inspire a bible that is clear for everyone to understand? Surely the creator of the human race could have pulled it off... or at least done a little better job than what we have available. >It only through Faith in Christ that we may return to the >state of perfection which is God's will for each of us. If this is His true concern, why did he abandon Adam and Eve in the first place? One mistake and you're screwed? What's this? Why wait so long to send the redeemer? Why wait so long to send him back the second (supposedly) time? Every year that goes by millions of human toys are being sent to hell... if this pains him so much why not put a stop to it? Too many questions, not enough answers for this reporter... Jeff Lindborg
psburns@lims04.lerc.nasa.gov (MAUREEN BURNS) (04/29/91)
In article <Apr.23.03.17.48.1991.2576@athos.rutgers.edu>, pkk36438@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Polygon) writes... >Were Adams and Eve born to be bad? No. However, they decided to do something >that was against the God's wish. It was reason that they were seperated from >God. > Firstly, Adam and Eve were not "born", they were created. They were created in the image of God, and intended to be image bearers of God. They were created to be good, to be involved intimately with each other and with God. Their environment was perfect, as was their relationship with each other and with God. To be in the image of God implies that they had a volition, or free will to choose. Satan sold them the lie that there was more to life than what God provided, so they chose to seek satisfaction outside of God by partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. >Rightness and wrongness must involve a decision or a choice. If people behave >involuntarily, they are not responsible for what they do in the sense of >morality. There is no such thing as an involuntary behavior or action. (Except of course for heartbeat and breathing!) We are volitional people, and are capable of making right and wrong choices. However, as a result of the fall, our thinking has been distorted due to sin. "Perceived" loss of choice is not the same as "actual" loss of choice. We percieve that we have no control or choices, but actually we do. (The laws may tell you a different story, which is out of my scope.) >If we have to be evil, then how can God, if there is such God, blame us for >being evil? If God decided to let people born to be bad, then Original Sin is >of God's wish and should not be considered evil. > The concept of "Original Sin" is, I think, Biblical, but it has been distorted a bit in translation. Sin is a condition of separation which we have inherited from our first parents, Adam and Eve. The so-called sinful action we exhibit in life: lying, stealing, promiscuity,etc. are the visible and logical fallouts of a condition one exists in. We are born into that state of separation, into that sinful state. Our natural tendancy is to move away from God, to seek satisfaction outside of his provisions. Look at how fast a two-year old demonstrates a streak of anger or rebellion or deceit. They don't learn those behaviors. They are born into it. However, on the flip side, because we have been created in God's image, there is inherent goodness in us. Because of the fall, it's distorted, almost invisible in some people. It's that goodness that drives us to repentance when we realize sin in our lives. It's that goodness that is appealing to us, and make us want to make things right. It's that goodness that, when you are born again, is aghast at sin and evil in the world. We are fallen image bearers, living life in a fallen world. There is something wrong with everything. But there is something right, too. > >So we see that morality involves free will and a revealed standard for >measurement. Is a baby born to be evil? No. It's because he/she has not have >a chance to make a choice-- for better or for worse. When he/she is able to >make a choice, he/she may or may not responsible for his/her act depending on >how his/her moral standard is established. Some standards can be universalized >and some cannot be. It will be morally valid to judge a person when he/she >makes a choice and selects a scale or standard of morality. I believe we are accountable to GOd for our choices only when we realize our options between right and wrong. To accept Jesus is right. To reject him is wrong. An infant has no way of discerning those options. That implies, that although he or she is still in the state of separation, that he or she is not accountable to God for that state, and therefore, is under the protection of the almighty. (I mean, that if an infant dies before that point of accountablity, God will take him or her to heaven. Only God knows when that child is intellectually capable of understanding choices. Perhaps, you can loosely compare it to a child who is born with some life long disease that needs constant medical attention. They have a condition that they are helpless to change or control. THey are not even aware of their condition. They are completely dependant on parents (for example) to administer the correct medication for protection. But at some time in their life, they are made aware of their condition, and given the responsibility to chose to either take care of it or not take care of it themselves. The choice is theirs only. It is not too different from the state of sin into which we are all born. Maureen
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/02/91)
In article <Apr.28.19.26.09.1991.20893@athos.rutgers.edu> lindborg@deer.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: > If God were truly just and wise he would have been a little clearer >and MUCH more straight forward about such weighty matters. Why all >the mystery and such? What is there to hide? Why not inspire a bible >that is clear for everyone to understand? Surely the creator of the >human race could have pulled it off... or at least done a little >better job than what we have available. Your question sounds like one that the Disciples asked Jesus. Matthew 13:10-17 10 Then the disciples came to Jesus and asked him, "Why do you use parables when you talk to the people?" 11 Jesus answered, "The knowledge about the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 For the person who has something will be given more, so that he will have more than enough; but the person who has nothing will have taken away from him even the little he has. 13 The reason I use parables in talking to them is that they look, but do not see, and they listen, but do not hear or understand. 14 So the prophecy of Isaiah applies to them: `This people will listen and listen, but not understand; they will look and look, but not see, 15 because their minds are dull, and they have stopped up their ears and have closed their eyes. Otherwise their eyes would see, their ears would hear, their minds would understand, and they would turn to me says God. and I would heal them.' 16 "As for you, how fortunate you are! Your eyes see and your ears hear. 17 I assure you that many prophets and many of God's people wanted very much to see what you see, but they could not, and to hear what you hear, but they did not. (TEV) You see, it's been my experience that with a bit of faith, you begin to understand. With that understanding comes more faith. With that faith still more understanding and so on. But at times when one begins to lose their faith, you lose understanding, this lack of understanding causes you to lose still more faith and so on. If you've had this experience, than Jesus talk of listening without hearing, and looking without seeing rings true. As does the talk about giving more to those who already have, and taking from those that lack. If you haven't had this experience, then even Jesus' explanations are riddles. But tell me truthfully, how *clear* would the Bible have to be for you to believe it? To me, it is quite clear. To you it is quite unclear, because you *choose* not to understand. (You cannot hear, because you have plugged your ears, you cannot see because you have closed your eyes.) Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) (05/02/91)
To the gentle who argued that original sin cannot stand because it is against God's will, here are some thoughts. Forst, we must ask ourselves what sin is. The simplest answer is "an action that is contrary to God's will". But this is not all. We must also ask who commits this action. The most common answer is "we all do". This makes for an individual-centered view of sin. Sins are words, thoughts and actions committed by each of us. But isn't it true that there is also a collective sin? Think of the pollution of nature. It is clearly a sin, since it destroys God's creation. But whose fault is it? The guilt here belongs not to any individual, but to all of us collectively -- it is part of the system that we have built, the society we live in. Every time we ride a bus, drive a car, buy something that is packed in plastic or go to the toilet, we contribute to pollution. In theory, I guess it would be possible for us to avoid this sin by exiting ourselves from society and living like hermits in the desert. But this is absurd -- for most of us, it remains that we cannot exist in modern society without becoming part of the system that pollutes nature. So there are sins that we cannot choose to avoid. Or at least, the price we would have to pay in order to avoid them would be enormous. Simply by being part of human society, as Jesus clearly wanted us to be, we become sinners. Now here comes my definition. Sin is everything that separates man from God. Everything that separates us. This means that sin is not only the evil actions we consciously commit after having chosen between good and evil. There is a lot of sin which is intertwined with humanity as such. You and I do not have to be personally responsible for all of it, even though we are part of humanity. The human race is separated from God, not just by the sinful acts of each one of us, but as a collective. It is inescapable. Thus, no man can ever stand before God without sin, even if his personal actions were ever so impeccable. In effect, it is sinful to be human because humanity is not in obedience to God. This is what I mean by original sin. Praise to God who forgives, and ever seeks to join us to Him! Ake Eldberg