Original Sin Can Go To Hell

[Rageaholic]

As I said in another thread, I think religious people would be the most accepting and kind people if it weren't for this doctrine. We were all created by God so things that come natural to people (like "lust" and "pride") wouldn't be seen as evil and sinful. There should be no need to worry if something offends God because If God didn't want people to be a certain way, he wouldn't make them that way. Instead of worrying about what God thinks, we should be trusting in what is good for each other.

The response is always the same, original sin: Adam (or was it Eve?) ate from the wrong tree and the race is fallen. Instead of being accepted for our faults, we deserve condemnation and need to be "saved" to or face eternal damnation. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Fuck. That. Shit. I've heard all the apologetic, pseudo philosophical arguements to defend this concept, but it all enrages me. I hate that people are willing to defend such an oppressive concept that condemns people for being who they are. Especially since there is no other reason to believe that God would have a problem with us (especially since he doesn't say anything).

Sorry for the rant, but this is something that really pisses me off!!!

[gremcint]

You know what it's the same bullshit that I should feel guilty for what my ancestors did. I am me, I am not my father or my grandfather or any of my ancestors I make my own choices and deserve to be judged by my own actions.

Further I thought Jesus died for our sins.

[Nekojin]

Original Sin is disobedience. Religion wants you to be obedient to their dictates, large and small. So it makes sense for them to paint disobedience as the Big #1, that you're guilty of before you're even aware enough to make decisions.

Obey. Conform. Respect authority. And never, ever question what we tell you.

[bunnyboy]

The odd thing is, Original Sin is one of the gray ares of being biblically sound.

First it has a basis in the bible.

However it should have flown out the window with the sins of the fathers not being put on their sons later on.

It's one of those weird wiggly theology questions that laymen just aren't quite understanding of.

[Rageaholic]

Original Sin is disobedience. Religion wants you to be obedient to their dictates, large and small. So it makes sense for them to paint disobedience as the Big #1, that you're guilty of before you're even aware enough to make decisions.

Obey. Conform. Respect authority. And never, ever question what we tell you.

That's why I think it's such an evil and repulsive concept. Any arguements for it just sound like excuses to justify an authoritarian concept. It's funny, the same religion that talks about the wonders of free will want to squash it by claiming everything we do is evil. That is unless you're Calvnist and believe we're all just puppets, but that's for a different thread.

[HYHYBT]

As I understand it, it's not so much that we're punished for sin we didn't commit, but that that first sin altered the species, giving everyone down the family tree the innate tendency towards sin.

It's sort of like a genetic alteration done on the only two examples of a species, which then manages to multiply successfully.

(Though I'd put it further back than humanity, given that species throughout nature do some pretty awful things, and that those things are in many cases necessary for their survival. It's just that *we* sometimes know better.)

[Jaden]

As I understand it, it's not so much that we're punished for sin we didn't commit, but that that first sin altered the species, giving everyone down the family tree the innate tendency towards sin.

It's sort of like a genetic alteration done on the only two examples of a species, which then manages to multiply successfully.

This.

This is what original sin means. It's also what the whole "the son shall inherit the sins of the father" thing means. It doesn't mean that we're blamed for what Adam did, but because of what Adam did, he irreparably damaged us as a species. Well, until Jesus came along.

Whether you believe it or not, I don't really see it as any harsher than just about any other explanation for how evil came into the world and how mankind is capable of such evil.

[Hyena Dandy]

From what I understood, and I'm not an expert, original was what gave us the knowledge of good and evil And with that knowledge, there is the responsibility to pick good. We don't hold people who are too mentally ill to know right from wrong responsible for their actions. We consider them incapable to stand trial.

But if they are capable of comprehending right and wrong, good and evil, then they have a responsibility to choose right or wrong.

If you consider that in Genesis, it seems that nudity is bad. Once they have knowledge of good and evil, they immediately put on clothes because nudity is sinful. God didn't CARE they were nude - So long as they didn't know better. Once they know better, God cares if they're naked.

[Rageaholic]

As I understand it, it's not so much that we're punished for sin we didn't commit, but that that first sin altered the species, giving everyone down the family tree the innate tendency towards sin.

It's sort of like a genetic alteration done on the only two examples of a species, which then manages to multiply successfully.

(Though I'd put it further back than humanity, given that species throughout nature do some pretty awful things, and that those things are in many cases necessary for their survival. It's just that *we* sometimes know better.)

But in a way, we're still being punished. According to Christian dogma, we can't help but sin, but still need to be punished for it. A lot of the things that are deemed sinful are things that are natural and don't hurt anyone (like the sin of "lust"). Original sin is always the excuse Christians use to defend their condemnation of things that should not be a big deal at all.

Of course, I don't know how many people take it that far. Maybe some view it as explanation for why people do things that are actually bad (like killing people). But I've seen it taken to misanthropic self loathing extremes. Like where people feel they deserve to be punished for not living up a near impossible standard. That's why I hate the doctrine and all apologetics associated with it.

[Nekojin]

It doesn't mean that we're blamed for what Adam did, but because of what Adam did, he irreparably damaged us as a species.

Wait, wait... doesn't that mean that mankind evolved because of Adam and Eve's actions?

[Andara Bledin]

According to Christian dogma, we can't help but sin, but still need to be punished for it.

Technically, we've always sinned; it's just that prior to the Applegate, we didn't know any better, and as such, were not held accountable.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

Of course, I don't know how many people take it that far. Maybe some view it as explanation for why people do things that are actually bad (like killing people). But I've seen it taken to misanthropic self loathing extremes. Like where people feel they deserve to be punished for not living up a near impossible standard. That's why I hate the doctrine and all apologetics associated with it.

Perfection is a totally impossible standard. Prior to as Andy puts it, Applegate we just didn't get in TROUBLE for it because we didn't know better.

Beating yourself up because you fail to live up to perfection is the opposite of how you're supposed to take the doctrine.

Wait, wait... doesn't that mean that mankind evolved because of Adam and Eve's actions?

HEATHENRAWRGNOTMONKEEEEEZ(maybe truck...)

[Panacea]

You know what it's the same bullshit that I should feel guilty for what my ancestors did. I am me, I am not my father or my grandfather or any of my ancestors I make my own choices and deserve to be judged by my own actions.

Further I thought Jesus died for our sins.

Original sin is a misunderstood doctrine. We are all born innocent; we are not being punished for the sins of Adam and Eve, and in fact Jesus did die for our sins and gained for us the chance of redemption.

However, Jesus's sacrifice doesn't mean we are not responsible for our actions. It means that we have a chance to reconcile with God for the sins we've committed. Doing so means we must repent of those sins; ie, we must be sorry and strive to live a better life based on Jesus's teachings.

What original sin means is that we lost the ignorance of sin that Adam and Eve had. Because we have knowledge of Good and Evil, we must make choices between the two.

But in a way, we're still being punished. According to Christian dogma, we can't help but sin, but still need to be punished for it. A lot of the things that are deemed sinful are things that are natural and don't hurt anyone (like the sin of "lust"). Original sin is always the excuse Christians use to defend their condemnation of things that should not be a big deal at all.

Of course, I don't know how many people take it that far. Maybe some view it as explanation for why people do things that are actually bad (like killing people). But I've seen it taken to misanthropic self loathing extremes. Like where people feel they deserve to be punished for not living up a near impossible standard. That's why I hate the doctrine and all apologetics associated with it.

Even religious people misunderstand Original Sin. I'll agree, the concept attempts to explain why people Do Bad Things, and why we should follow Jesus and Do Good Things.

We don't need to be punished for sin. We need to be FORGIVEN for sin, the sins WE commit when we are hurtful to ourselves or to other people. We do that through our relationship with Jesus; he reconciles us with God. He helps us accept accountability for what we do, and earn redemption.

Wait, wait... doesn't that mean that mankind evolved because of Adam and Eve's actions?

You could look at it that way. Christianity doesn't teach this, but my personal belief is God knew Adam and Eve would disobey him, and that this was necessary for them to grow. Children often disobey their parents and learn valuable lessons.

[Rageaholic]

Looking back, I think the real doctrine I had a problem with was Total Deprevity. It's a Calvinist doctrine which stresses how evil and no good we are. Even though we were supposidly created and predestined by God to be that way. The only logical conclusion you can reach from it is that God is a mad puppetmaster who just likes to fuck with us. Of all versions of Christianity, Calvinism is the most terrifying for it's implications. I can have some respect for other denominations for at least encouraging some standards, but Calvinism is like a real life cosmic horror story.

[HYHYBT]

Calvinism is... interesting. What's interesting to me about it is that, while there are people in denominations that don't officially subscribe to it who do, there are also quite a lot in some denominations which officially are Calvinistic back there somewhere (I'm thinking of Presbyterians) who don't subscribe to it.... and churches often don't either, or downplay some aspects and ignore others.

I do like a very simple argument I remember seeing in one of C. S. Lewis's books: if we were totally depraved, we wouldn't know we were depraved at all.