"Original Sin"....Just Another term for our animal nature?

[Crossbreed]

Please cite the specific book, chapter, and verse that supports your claim.

Why would that responsibility fall to me?
I did not invent the doctrine.

If "the shoe fits," you now know what the fix is.
It is the sick who need a Doctor.

 

[Fino]

Everyone does to some extent.

There's zero chance I could have been Muslim, or Hindu or Jewish. Not available as a kid. If I had faith as a part of my programming I'd have been Christian, probably fundamentalist Protestant. Since faith is not a natural part of my makeup, I couldn't have been a believer. So I existed as a cultural Christian until I could get away and live the secular life I was naturally better adapted to.

I think many Americans are cultural Christians. They do not take the Bible literally but they absorbed many of the high points. They do not take the dogma seriously but have a vague feeling something is out there that is greater than they and can probably name several of the Ten Commandments. In a religious environment they can "pass."

For whatever reason, some people are better at having faith than others. Some need it, some have no use for it and this is heavily influenced by biochemistry and by environment. All seems pretty random to me.

We love to take credit for making decisions that were actually inevitable, considering all the forces acting on us. Given my life's influences I could not have become anything other than a completely secular person - an agnostic. That doesn't make the logic behind it invalid, however. To me it is unavoidable.

As science is better able to explain and predict the universe, there is less need for religion. As faith becomes less convenient to our ends, there is less faith. In a modern western culture, there's less overt demand for religious adherence and those people who don't feel that need are free to dispense with it.

Surely, you don't believe it's ever literally inevitable. There are exceptions in all cultures throughout all times. I have a feeling you know, so I'm guessing you're speaking in generalities.

 

[RemyZee]

Have you considered that God probably intended humans to eat that fruit when they got independent enough to disobey?

Take a child, put them in a room, and specifically tell them NOT to eat any cookies - as you point to a jar full of them. Then leave. What do you think will happen?

What will happen? the child will grab a cookie. And will also lie about it without a twitch. Which itself is a theological issue.

 

[Au Naturel]

Surely, you don't believe it's ever literally inevitable. There are exceptions in all cultures throughout all times. I have a feeling you know, so I'm guessing you're speaking in generalities.

I have serious doubts about the existence of free will. In the absence of a mechanism for free will to exist, I figure it is more likely to be inevitable than not. The only uncertainty I see in the world is at the quantum level. But the quantum world is random. Random may lead into chaos (iterative non-linear systems in which arbitrarily small variations in initial conditions become magnified over time) but not free will.

 

[Au Naturel]

remove the concept of original sin from Christian doctrine

And you are very close to Judaism. If there is no need for a savior, Jesus can be treated as an influential rabbi.

 

[RemyZee]

If no one else has mentioned it I believe this is also called the doctrine of "total depravity",

Kind of like "original " sin", it's the idea" that humans are utterly corrupt and that babies are born completey isolated from God, "stained by sin," just by virtue of their being born. And through "justification" a person is lucky enough to be saved.

It's a very masochistic theology in my opinion.. So many :Bible believing CHristians" seem to get comfort from the thought of being dominated by God.

 

[Crossbreed]

So many :Bible believing CHristians" seem to get comfort from the thought of being dominated by God.

Barry McGuire: Brainwashed​

 

[The Pandector]

And you are very close to Judaism. If there is no need for a savior, Jesus can be treated as an influential rabbi.

Your comment confuses me. Are you saying that, because the Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah, that means they reject the need for a messiah in general?

 

[The Pandector]

If no one else has mentioned it I believe this is also called the doctrine of "total depravity",

Kind of like "original " sin", it's the idea" that humans are utterly corrupt and that babies are born completey isolated from God, "stained by sin," just by virtue of their being born. And through "justification" a person is lucky enough to be saved.

It's a very masochistic theology in my opinion.. So many :Bible believing CHristians" seem to get comfort from the thought of being dominated by God.

If a person believes in God, and that they have a relationship with him, then domination isn’t what comforts them. It’s the loving care they experience from God that’s so comforting.

This is like when people speak disparagingly about having to ‘live their lives according to an old book’. To the Bible believing Christian you mention, it is a matter for great gratitude that we’ve been given written wisdom and guidance. The person without faith in God resents the intrusion on their autonomy, while the person of faith humbly acknowledges their need for wisdom and guidance.

Likewise with ‘domination’; that’s simply not the experience of the person gladly receiving God’s care.

 

[Cryptid]

According to the Bible, "animal nature" is a euphemism for Original Sin (even if we have a primate body plan).

Please cite the specific book, chapter, and verse that supports your claim.

Why would that responsibility fall to me?
I did not invent the doctrine.

If "the shoe fits," you now know what the fix is.
It is the sick who need a Doctor.

The onus to support a claim ALWAYS rest firmly on the person who made the claim. This is called "Burden of Proof".

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. This is called "Hitchen's Razor".

Therefore, I declare your claim to be invalid. This is called "Critical Thought in Action".

 

[Crossbreed]

The onus to support a claim ALWAYS rest firmly on the person who made the claim. This is called "Burden of Proof".

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. This is called "Hitchen's Razor".

Therefore, I declare your claim to be invalid.

I do not feel compelled to convince you that you were "born into sin."
I just have something to offer those who have concluded this to be true (for themselves).

 

[Cryptid]

^ Welcome to my 'Ignore' list. Enjoy your stay.

 

[The Pandector]

Please cite the specific book, chapter, and verse that supports your claim.

From the Christianity.com Editorial Staff:

Original Sin, also described as Ancestral Sin, is a Christian view of the nature of sin in which humanity has existed since the fall of man. Original Sin arose from Adam and Eve's transgression in Eden, the sin of disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Thus, it seems that "Original Sin" is rebellion against G^D and His precepts. It is part of human nature.

When asked whether pornography is approved by the Bible, one might respond that nowhere in the Bible does it say “viewing pornography is forbidden”, nor does it say “pornography is evil”. In fact, I’m not aware of any translation that ventures to use the word ‘pornography’. Like the very proper and useful ‘holy trinity’, the words ‘original sin’, ‘ancestral sin’, and ‘euphemism’ do not appear in the Bible. This makes it very difficult to formally justify a word like ‘euphemism’ even when the word is logically justified. For a useful discussion, grace is required in this regard.

When asked, for instance, to justify a word like euphemism, the wise Bible student might decline to be drawn into a hopeless argument. That doesn’t mean there isn’t plenty of room for constructive discussion; possibly just that a constructive conclusion seems unlikely. The Bible does recommend avoiding pointless theological discussions.

I’ve always found it useful, whenever possible, to use Biblical terms if you intend to use the Bible as a trusted source. This tends to frame the discussion in terms easier to work with.

Myself, I wouldn’t say that animal nature is a euphemism for original sin, though the terms are related. I’d agree Satan used our animal nature to draw us into original sin, but that doesn’t make them synonymous. However, I would say that, in a non-adversarial environment, it is useful to think of original sin as a limited return to our animal nature, making them effectively very similar.

Furthermore, I sincerely doubt that @Crossbreed would be hard pressed to demonstrate Biblical support for his comments, should he choose to do so, but it would take considerable reference and verbiage, which, again, would probably be wasted in an adversarial environment. If I’m correct in this, @Crossbreed has proven to be the wiser man than I.

 

[Magna]

When asked whether pornography is approved by the Bible, one might respond that nowhere in the Bible does it say “viewing pornography is forbidden”, nor does it say “pornography is evil”. In fact, I’m not aware of any translation that ventures to use the word ‘pornography’. Like the very proper and useful ‘holy trinity’, the words ‘original sin’, ‘ancestral sin’, and ‘euphemism’ do not appear in the Bible. This makes it very difficult to formally justify a word like ‘euphemism’ even when the word is logically justified. For a useful discussion, grace is required in this regard.

Lust, no?

Matthew, chapter 5, verses 27-28, where Jesus says:

"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

An issue that I have with Christianity as practiced is the unlimited number of interpretations, opinions, feelings, beliefs, etc as to the content and meaning of the Bible. I believe the number of Christian denominations is over 10,000. Point being: There can be a Christian who believes that since the literal word "pornography" doesn't appear in the BIble, then porn is ok whereas another can believe that the passage I cite above includes porn.

Humans can believe whatever they want. People can choose to live their life by the beliefs they ascribe to. In those 10,000 denominations (all created by humans) one is likely to be able to find not only conflicting viewpoints (all held by humans) but viewpoints that align with the the views of said people. Said people believe, respectively, that they're version of Christianity is true and correct and "what God wants".

People will sometimes say something like: "The Bible is THE perfect roadmap for life because it's given to us by God and in it, God says that anyone who doesn't follow it, rejects it, etc will suffer eternal punishment.

Think of a person walking precariously along a precipice and to each side of them off the path was a 1,000 foot drop. A "roadmap for life" for that person would be as simple and universally understandable as: "DO NOT go off the path. If you do step off the path, you will fall to your death." < In this example, the rule applies to everyone. Even if there was an interpretation (by a human of course) where someone said they believed that wasn't true, the outcome for anyone trying it would undoubtedly be the same and obviously so. Not the case with the Bible as I've previously stated. Limitless interpretations (by humans). Like trying to figure out how to assemble a desk using an instruction manual that's not clear and open to interpretation but at the same time under the threat of eternal punishment if you get it wrong.

 

[The Pandector]

Lust, no?

Matthew, chapter 5, verses 27-28, where Jesus says:

"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

An issue that I have with Christianity as practiced is the unlimited number of interpretations, opinions, feelings, beliefs, etc as to the content and meaning of the Bible. I believe the number of Christian denominations is over 10,000. Point being: There can be a Christian who believes that since the literal word "pornography" doesn't appear in the BIble, then porn is ok whereas another can believe that the passage I cite above includes porn.

Humans can believe whatever they want. People can choose to live their life by the beliefs they ascribe to. In those 10,000 denominations (all created by humans) one is likely to be able to find not only conflicting viewpoints (all held by humans) but viewpoints that align with the the views of said people. Said people believe, respectively, that they're version of Christianity is true and correct and "what God wants".

Well stated, @Magna . Though Paul was talking to the Romans about religious observances, maybe we can apply his dictum to let each man be fully convinced in his own mind.

Your lament brings to mind Paul’s final warnings to the Ephesian elders. He knew that on his departure, wolves would come and feed off the flock. We were warned that we would be bought and sold in this age. By my lights, we can’t allow all the smoke and mirrors of the enemy to obscure the fact that there is an objective spiritual truth, and that it has been revealed to us. How do we know which of the many disparate voices to follow? I bet you know the Scripture for that answer, too.

 

[Magna]

Well stated, @Magna . Though Paul was talking to the Romans about religious observances, maybe we can apply his dictum to let each man be fully convinced in his own mind.

Who was speaking to the crowd In Matthew Chapter 5 vs. 27-28?

 

[Crossbreed]

An issue that I have with Christianity as practiced is the unlimited number of interpretations, opinions, feelings, beliefs, etc as to the content and meaning of the Bible.

Sanctification in Born-Again Christianity is a "work in progress," but it is a convergent one.
We might all start off from different places, but His children will all end up on the same page when we finally meet Him (per 1 John 3:2).
That is what Grace is for.

 

[The Pandector]

Who was speaking to the crowd In Matthew Chapter 5 vs. 27-28?

Uh oh. Did you take my comment to mean that I’m not firm on that sin, that I’m okay as long as you ‘believe’ it’s okay? Your response seems to indicate that I place Paul on one side and Jesus on another. In fact, I intentionally used the example of sexual lust precisely because Scripture leaves no room for doubt about God’s firm stance, irregardless of how vehemently each generation of humans believes otherwise. Forgive me if I left the impression that I think sin is defined by human vote.

Rather, I hung my hat on what it means for a Christian to be ‘fully persuaded’ in his own mind. This is key to the ‘convergence’ to which @Crossbreed later referred. IOW, I disagree with your assertion that a Christian could read Matthew 5 and come away believing Jesus is okay with porn. Yes, it could conceivably happen, but not in a Biblically credible manner.

Many people think of Christianity as whatever is going on in what passes publicly as the church. It might be more helpful to think of Christianity as that genuine thing that is happening between the Lord and each member of his body, while the world continues on its merry march.

When the devil’s not mocking, he’s probably mimicking; it falls to the believer to exercise discernment, which the Lord promises to those who sincerely apply to him for it.

 

[Magna]

I disagree with your assertion that a Christian could read Matthew 5 and come away believing Jesus is okay with porn.

That's not my assertion. I must have misunderstood you in saying that since the word "pornography" isn't in the Bible, then it must be ok. Remember some Christians do take the Bible literally while others do not; and everything in between. A cool T-shirt could read: "Christianity: 10,000 denominations and counting..."

 

[Crossbreed]

A cool T-shirt could read: "Christianity: 10,000 denominations and counting..."

We all start from different places.