Total Posts:170|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Original Sin Biblical?

Raisor
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 3:58:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A while ago I did a debate on Original Sin and whether the claim that Original Sin resulted in man's sinful nature is biblical:

http://www.debate.org...

There seem to be two sides of the issue:

The Biblical - How do we interpret New Testament passages like Romans 5 and how do we interpret the Creation story?

The philosophical - Does a sinful nature conflict with justice and personal responsibility?

I am interested to hear what others think about the issue. Did Adam's sin cause man's sinful nature? If Adam had not sinned, would the rest of humanity be less prone to sin?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 4:30:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 3:58:02 PM, Raisor wrote:
A while ago I did a debate on Original Sin and whether the claim that Original Sin resulted in man's sinful nature is biblical:

http://www.debate.org...

There seem to be two sides of the issue:

The Biblical - How do we interpret New Testament passages like Romans 5 and how do we interpret the Creation story?

The philosophical - Does a sinful nature conflict with justice and personal responsibility?

I am interested to hear what others think about the issue. Did Adam's sin cause man's sinful nature? If Adam had not sinned, would the rest of humanity be less prone to sin?

What is original sin?

Different people appear to have different ideas on what that is.

However what scripture tells us, and therefore what I can only hold as true since scripture is God's word, is that When Adam sinned it somehow altered his physical nature so that we are left open to the death, and sinful ideas and thinking.

This is depicted by the fact that until they sinned, nether Adam nor Eve saw anything wrong with being naked. Only afterwards .

That sinful nature has been passed down to us, as scripture tells us, and brings with it sickness and death.

Jesus body was specially created in Mary's womb so that this sinful nature would not be passed on to him, thus making him anther Adam, and a suitable sacrifice to buy us back the future right to eternal life under the same conditions as Adam and Eve enjoyed, and with the same prospects.

That is the story scripture tells, very much in a nutshell.

There are numerous false doctrines about, all designed to make it harder to find the truth.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,950
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:18:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 3:58:02 PM, Raisor wrote:
A while ago I did a debate on Original Sin and whether the claim that Original Sin resulted in man's sinful nature is biblical:

http://www.debate.org...

There seem to be two sides of the issue:

The Biblical - How do we interpret New Testament passages like Romans 5 and how do we interpret the Creation story?

The philosophical - Does a sinful nature conflict with justice and personal responsibility?

I am interested to hear what others think about the issue. Did Adam's sin cause man's sinful nature? If Adam had not sinned, would the rest of humanity be less prone to sin?

First of all, you must understand what Adam's sin was. If the first human being had not refused to be obedient to his ancestral spirit that dwelt within him, and instead chose to judge for himself, that which was good or bad, then we would all still be animals, blindly following our inherent animal instincts, having no concept of death as being the end to life.

It was this sin, (Disobedience to our indwelling parental spirit) which brought death into the lives of all of his descendants.
ChopChop
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:22:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 3:58:02 PM, Raisor wrote:
A while ago I did a debate on Original Sin and whether the claim that Original Sin resulted in man's sinful nature is biblical:

http://www.debate.org...

There seem to be two sides of the issue:

The Biblical - How do we interpret New Testament passages like Romans 5 and how do we interpret the Creation story?

The philosophical - Does a sinful nature conflict with justice and personal responsibility?

I am interested to hear what others think about the issue. Did Adam's sin cause man's sinful nature? If Adam had not sinned, would the rest of humanity be less prone to sin?

I am not without feeling when it comes to the sincerity of what people believe, but it seems to me that there is an abundance of evidence that men all too often read into the scriptures what they do not say. And that is true even of ones who have this awareness that men have distorted the scriptures, such as Jehovah's Witnesses. It is a mistake to think we have gotten beyond that completely.

Where does the Bible ever say that Adam and Eve's new awareness of their nakedness was evidence that their physical nature in any way changed?

Where in the Bible does it ever say that Jesus was shielded by the holy spirit in Mary's womb so that he would not inherit a sin nature of man's flesh?

Is it really acceptable to go so far beyond what is actually written to add such ideas? I don't cannot see how that could be acceptable. It seems it would rather be proof that we have not yet cleared away our own intelligence that we might let God tell us what to see. Once we think we see we are no longer open to seeing anything other than what we think we see. The truth is that we cannot see but by imagination what is not actually told us in the scriptures. So believing we see what is not said may well be a danger signal.

The question we need to ask is whether the sin nature is a genetic trait or whether it is a learned mental/spiritual trait. If it is genetically passed then we have no control over and and God's own justice could not condemn us for it. But if it is a learned trait passed by corrupted knowledge from one generation unto the next,, then once we have been enlightened to the need to correct that thinking us and we fail to do so, then we become guilty under God's perfect justice.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,950
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:33:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 5:22:08 PM, ChopChop wrote:
At 3/28/2015 3:58:02 PM, Raisor wrote:
A while ago I did a debate on Original Sin and whether the claim that Original Sin resulted in man's sinful nature is biblical:

http://www.debate.org...

There seem to be two sides of the issue:

The Biblical - How do we interpret New Testament passages like Romans 5 and how do we interpret the Creation story?

The philosophical - Does a sinful nature conflict with justice and personal responsibility?

I am interested to hear what others think about the issue. Did Adam's sin cause man's sinful nature? If Adam had not sinned, would the rest of humanity be less prone to sin?

I am not without feeling when it comes to the sincerity of what people believe, but it seems to me that there is an abundance of evidence that men all too often read into the scriptures what they do not say. And that is true even of ones who have this awareness that men have distorted the scriptures, such as Jehovah's Witnesses. It is a mistake to think we have gotten beyond that completely.

Where does the Bible ever say that Adam and Eve's new awareness of their nakedness was evidence that their physical nature in any way changed?

Where in the Bible does it ever say that Jesus was shielded by the holy spirit in Mary's womb so that he would not inherit a sin nature of man's flesh?

Is it really acceptable to go so far beyond what is actually written to add such ideas? I don't cannot see how that could be acceptable. It seems it would rather be proof that we have not yet cleared away our own intelligence that we might let God tell us what to see. Once we think we see we are no longer open to seeing anything other than what we think we see. The truth is that we cannot see but by imagination what is not actually told us in the scriptures. So believing we see what is not said may well be a danger signal.

The question we need to ask is whether the sin nature is a genetic trait or whether it is a learned mental/spiritual trait. If it is genetically passed then we have no control over and and God's own justice could not condemn us for it. But if it is a learned trait passed by corrupted knowledge from one generation unto the next,, then once we have been enlightened to the need to correct that thinking us and we fail to do so, then we become guilty under God's perfect justice.

Where in the uncorrupted scriptures does it say that the man Jesus was anything but a normal human being, who was born of two human parents, Mary and her half brother Joseph, who were both sired by the one father, "Alexander Helios=Heli?"
ChopChop
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 6:07:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 4:30:37 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/28/2015 3:58:02 PM, Raisor wrote:
A while ago I did a debate on Original Sin and whether the claim that Original Sin resulted in man's sinful nature is biblical:

http://www.debate.org...

There seem to be two sides of the issue:

The Biblical - How do we interpret New Testament passages like Romans 5 and how do we interpret the Creation story?

The philosophical - Does a sinful nature conflict with justice and personal responsibility?

I am interested to hear what others think about the issue. Did Adam's sin cause man's sinful nature? If Adam had not sinned, would the rest of humanity be less prone to sin?

What is original sin?

Different people appear to have different ideas on what that is.

However what scripture tells us, and therefore what I can only hold as true since scripture is God's word, is that When Adam sinned it somehow altered his physical nature so that we are left open to the death, and sinful ideas and thinking.

This is depicted by the fact that until they sinned, nether Adam nor Eve saw anything wrong with being naked. Only afterwards .

That sinful nature has been passed down to us, as scripture tells us, and brings with it sickness and death.

Jesus body was specially created in Mary's womb so that this sinful nature would not be passed on to him, thus making him anther Adam, and a suitable sacrifice to buy us back the future right to eternal life under the same conditions as Adam and Eve enjoyed, and with the same prospects.

That is the story scripture tells, very much in a nutshell.

There are numerous false doctrines about, all designed to make it harder to find the truth.

If we genetically inherit a sin nature then those who claim we are helpless to it in this flesh are right. But if that were true then we would not have needed a sacrifice to cover us for our sins, for God's justice could not then condemn us for continuing to sin through no fault of our own.

The WTB&TS states, *** w90 11/1 p. 5 Transforming Human Nature ***
"The Bible account of sin"s entry onto the human scene is clear and simple"in fact, so simple that most choose not to believe it. This is how Paul described it: "Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." (Romans 5:12) Paul is here alluding to Genesis, the first book of the Bible, and to the creation of the first man, Adam, and his wife, Eve. Their willful disobedience is well-known. On account of it, they were sentenced to death. Their offspring inherited their imperfections and likewise died. So then, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." For this basic reason, human nature today is at best a muddied reflection of what it was when God originally created man perfect."Romans 3:23; Genesis, chapters 2 and 3." (end quote)

Now think about that, "human nature today is at best a muddied reflection of what it was when God originally created man perfect"

What are we reflecting in our nature? "Their willful disobedience is well-known"
So it appears that upon a deeper look the WTB&TS believes, just as I do, that our tendency to sin is a matter of willfulness on our part.

Note what that same article said as regards the "sin nature", *** w90 11/1 pp. 4-5 Transforming Human Nature ***

"Today"s English Version, however, is a"free translation and the expression "what"human nature does" is merely a paraphrase of what Paul actually said. The"Greek word used by Paul, sarx, means""flesh," not "human nature." For this"reason, literal translations speak here"of""the works of the flesh" to convey Paul"s"expression accurately in our modern tongue." (end quote)

There we see that the "works of our flesh" are not by some genetic predisposition but by willfulness on our part, a learned condition of man's poorly fed spirit.

Let us see if we can find other evidence that the WTB&TS knows the problem is not due to some imagined genetic inheritance. Look up and read the following articles published by the WTB&TS:

Watchtower 2002 6/1 pp. 9-12 Who Is to Blame " You or Your Genes?

Awake 1996 9/22 pp. 3-4 "It"s Not My Fault"

Awake 1996 9/22 pp. 4-8 Are We Predestined by Our Genes?

Knowledge that Leads to Everlasting Life 2006 - chap. 7 pp. 62-69 Chapter 7 What God Has Done to Save Mankind
Gentorev
Posts: 2,950
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 6:25:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 6:07:30 PM, ChopChop wrote:
At 3/28/2015 4:30:37 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/28/2015 3:58:02 PM, Raisor wrote:
A while ago I did a debate on Original Sin and whether the claim that Original Sin resulted in man's sinful nature is biblical:

http://www.debate.org...

There seem to be two sides of the issue:

The Biblical - How do we interpret New Testament passages like Romans 5 and how do we interpret the Creation story?

The philosophical - Does a sinful nature conflict with justice and personal responsibility?

I am interested to hear what others think about the issue. Did Adam's sin cause man's sinful nature? If Adam had not sinned, would the rest of humanity be less prone to sin?

What is original sin?

Different people appear to have different ideas on what that is.

However what scripture tells us, and therefore what I can only hold as true since scripture is God's word, is that When Adam sinned it somehow altered his physical nature so that we are left open to the death, and sinful ideas and thinking.

This is depicted by the fact that until they sinned, nether Adam nor Eve saw anything wrong with being naked. Only afterwards .

That sinful nature has been passed down to us, as scripture tells us, and brings with it sickness and death.

Jesus body was specially created in Mary's womb so that this sinful nature would not be passed on to him, thus making him anther Adam, and a suitable sacrifice to buy us back the future right to eternal life under the same conditions as Adam and Eve enjoyed, and with the same prospects.

That is the story scripture tells, very much in a nutshell.

There are numerous false doctrines about, all designed to make it harder to find the truth.

If we genetically inherit a sin nature then those who claim we are helpless to it in this flesh are right. But if that were true then we would not have needed a sacrifice to cover us for our sins, for God's justice could not then condemn us for continuing to sin through no fault of our own.

The WTB&TS states, *** w90 11/1 p. 5 Transforming Human Nature ***
"The Bible account of sin"s entry onto the human scene is clear and simple"in fact, so simple that most choose not to believe it. This is how Paul described it: "Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." (Romans 5:12) Paul is here alluding to Genesis, the first book of the Bible, and to the creation of the first man, Adam, and his wife, Eve. Their willful disobedience is well-known. On account of it, they were sentenced to death. Their offspring inherited their imperfections and likewise died. So then, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." For this basic reason, human nature today is at best a muddied reflection of what it was when God originally created man perfect."Romans 3:23; Genesis, chapters 2 and 3." (end quote)

Now think about that, "human nature today is at best a muddied reflection of what it was when God originally created man perfect"

What are we reflecting in our nature? "Their willful disobedience is well-known"
So it appears that upon a deeper look the WTB&TS believes, just as I do, that our tendency to sin is a matter of willfulness on our part.

Note what that same article said as regards the "sin nature", *** w90 11/1 pp. 4-5 Transforming Human Nature ***

"Today"s English Version, however, is a"free translation and the expression "what"human nature does" is merely a paraphrase of what Paul actually said. The"Greek word used by Paul, sarx, means""flesh," not "human nature." For this"reason, literal translations speak here"of""the works of the flesh" to convey Paul"s"expression accurately in our modern tongue." (end quote)

There we see that the "works of our flesh" are not by some genetic predisposition but by willfulness on our part, a learned condition of man's poorly fed spirit.

Let us see if we can find other evidence that the WTB&TS knows the problem is not due to some imagined genetic inheritance. Look up and read the following articles published by the WTB&TS:

Watchtower 2002 6/1 pp. 9-12 Who Is to Blame " You or Your Genes?

Awake 1996 9/22 pp. 3-4 "It"s Not My Fault"

Awake 1996 9/22 pp. 4-8 Are We Predestined by Our Genes?

Knowledge that Leads to Everlasting Life 2006 - chap. 7 pp. 62-69 Chapter 7 What God Has Done to Save Mankind

Are you a member of the JW cult?
ChopChop
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 6:52:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 6:25:00 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/28/2015 6:07:30 PM, ChopChop wrote:
At 3/28/2015 4:30:37 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/28/2015 3:58:02 PM, Raisor wrote:
A while ago I did a debate on Original Sin and whether the claim that Original Sin resulted in man's sinful nature is biblical:

http://www.debate.org...

There seem to be two sides of the issue:

The Biblical - How do we interpret New Testament passages like Romans 5 and how do we interpret the Creation story?

The philosophical - Does a sinful nature conflict with justice and personal responsibility?

I am interested to hear what others think about the issue. Did Adam's sin cause man's sinful nature? If Adam had not sinned, would the rest of humanity be less prone to sin?

What is original sin?

Different people appear to have different ideas on what that is.

However what scripture tells us, and therefore what I can only hold as true since scripture is God's word, is that When Adam sinned it somehow altered his physical nature so that we are left open to the death, and sinful ideas and thinking.

This is depicted by the fact that until they sinned, nether Adam nor Eve saw anything wrong with being naked. Only afterwards .

That sinful nature has been passed down to us, as scripture tells us, and brings with it sickness and death.

Jesus body was specially created in Mary's womb so that this sinful nature would not be passed on to him, thus making him anther Adam, and a suitable sacrifice to buy us back the future right to eternal life under the same conditions as Adam and Eve enjoyed, and with the same prospects.

That is the story scripture tells, very much in a nutshell.

There are numerous false doctrines about, all designed to make it harder to find the truth.

If we genetically inherit a sin nature then those who claim we are helpless to it in this flesh are right. But if that were true then we would not have needed a sacrifice to cover us for our sins, for God's justice could not then condemn us for continuing to sin through no fault of our own.

The WTB&TS states, *** w90 11/1 p. 5 Transforming Human Nature ***
"The Bible account of sin"s entry onto the human scene is clear and simple"in fact, so simple that most choose not to believe it. This is how Paul described it: "Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." (Romans 5:12) Paul is here alluding to Genesis, the first book of the Bible, and to the creation of the first man, Adam, and his wife, Eve. Their willful disobedience is well-known. On account of it, they were sentenced to death. Their offspring inherited their imperfections and likewise died. So then, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." For this basic reason, human nature today is at best a muddied reflection of what it was when God originally created man perfect."Romans 3:23; Genesis, chapters 2 and 3." (end quote)

Now think about that, "human nature today is at best a muddied reflection of what it was when God originally created man perfect"

What are we reflecting in our nature? "Their willful disobedience is well-known"
So it appears that upon a deeper look the WTB&TS believes, just as I do, that our tendency to sin is a matter of willfulness on our part.

Note what that same article said as regards the "sin nature", *** w90 11/1 pp. 4-5 Transforming Human Nature ***

"Today"s English Version, however, is a"free translation and the expression "what"human nature does" is merely a paraphrase of what Paul actually said. The"Greek word used by Paul, sarx, means""flesh," not "human nature." For this"reason, literal translations speak here"of""the works of the flesh" to convey Paul"s"expression accurately in our modern tongue." (end quote)

There we see that the "works of our flesh" are not by some genetic predisposition but by willfulness on our part, a learned condition of man's poorly fed spirit.

Let us see if we can find other evidence that the WTB&TS knows the problem is not due to some imagined genetic inheritance. Look up and read the following articles published by the WTB&TS:

Watchtower 2002 6/1 pp. 9-12 Who Is to Blame " You or Your Genes?

Awake 1996 9/22 pp. 3-4 "It"s Not My Fault"

Awake 1996 9/22 pp. 4-8 Are We Predestined by Our Genes?

Knowledge that Leads to Everlasting Life 2006 - chap. 7 pp. 62-69 Chapter 7 What God Has Done to Save Mankind

Are you a member of the JW cult?

They won't allow me to be a member. But I think cult is a rather strong word to use as the word today is understood. They may consider me as an enemy but nothing could be further from the truth.

So what we see with regards to organizations like the WTB&TS is ambivalence as to the clear answer which has in fact existed within their publications for quite some time now. And that is likely caused of some disagreement among the governing members of these organizations so that they are unable to take a concrete stance on the subject. And for as much as they might fear me for pointing this out, it is not good for the sheep that they should continue in such evident indecisiveness, leaving the sheep to also be subject to confusion for the lack of a clear stance.

Start at the beginning and follow this carefully through the scriptures:

What did Adam and Eve's suddenly seeing their own nakedness really imply? Did it not merely imply that now, instead of completely trusting God to supply all of their needs both materially and spiritually, that they now had begun to doubt God and due to that doubt had begun to look to see what else God may have failed to tell them? And seeing that all the animals had been clothed of God with beautiful coats of fir and feathers, they now noticed things through a mind of doubt that was looking to see what they lacked. And so they imagined they had found fault with God, the beginning of a continuous growing away from listening to God and completely trusting him.

Thus, we find those two things spoken of together:

Genesis 3:21 "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of [animal] skins, and clothed them.
22 And the LORD God said, 'BEHOLD THE MAN HAS BECOME AS ONE OF US TO KNOW GOOD AND EVIL [FOR HIS OWN SELF]': and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.." (KJV)

Now, if Adam and Eve now believed in looking to find for their own selves what was good and what was evil, what do you suppose they would teach their offspring?

Proverbs 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

What do we find as we walk this thought through the scriptures from beginning to end?
Gentorev
Posts: 2,950
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 7:12:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 6:52:53 PM, ChopChop wrote:
At 3/28/2015 6:25:00 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/28/2015 6:07:30 PM, ChopChop wrote:
At 3/28/2015 4:30:37 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/28/2015 3:58:02 PM, Raisor wrote:
A while ago I did a debate on Original Sin and whether the claim that Original Sin resulted in man's sinful nature is biblical:

http://www.debate.org...

There seem to be two sides of the issue:

The Biblical - How do we interpret New Testament passages like Romans 5 and how do we interpret the Creation story?

The philosophical - Does a sinful nature conflict with justice and personal responsibility?

I am interested to hear what others think about the issue. Did Adam's sin cause man's sinful nature? If Adam had not sinned, would the rest of humanity be less prone to sin?

What is original sin?

Different people appear to have different ideas on what that is.

However what scripture tells us, and therefore what I can only hold as true since scripture is God's word, is that When Adam sinned it somehow altered his physical nature so that we are left open to the death, and sinful ideas and thinking.

This is depicted by the fact that until they sinned, nether Adam nor Eve saw anything wrong with being naked. Only afterwards .

That sinful nature has been passed down to us, as scripture tells us, and brings with it sickness and death.

Jesus body was specially created in Mary's womb so that this sinful nature would not be passed on to him, thus making him anther Adam, and a suitable sacrifice to buy us back the future right to eternal life under the same conditions as Adam and Eve enjoyed, and with the same prospects.

That is the story scripture tells, very much in a nutshell.

There are numerous false doctrines about, all designed to make it harder to find the truth.

If we genetically inherit a sin nature then those who claim we are helpless to it in this flesh are right. But if that were true then we would not have needed a sacrifice to cover us for our sins, for God's justice could not then condemn us for continuing to sin through no fault of our own.

The WTB&TS states, *** w90 11/1 p. 5 Transforming Human Nature ***
"The Bible account of sin"s entry onto the human scene is clear and simple"in fact, so simple that most choose not to believe it. This is how Paul described it: "Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." (Romans 5:12) Paul is here alluding to Genesis, the first book of the Bible, and to the creation of the first man, Adam, and his wife, Eve. Their willful disobedience is well-known. On account of it, they were sentenced to death. Their offspring inherited their imperfections and likewise died. So then, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." For this basic reason, human nature today is at best a muddied reflection of what it was when God originally created man perfect."Romans 3:23; Genesis, chapters 2 and 3." (end quote)

Now think about that, "human nature today is at best a muddied reflection of what it was when God originally created man perfect"

What are we reflecting in our nature? "Their willful disobedience is well-known"
So it appears that upon a deeper look the WTB&TS believes, just as I do, that our tendency to sin is a matter of willfulness on our part.

Note what that same article said as regards the "sin nature", *** w90 11/1 pp. 4-5 Transforming Human Nature ***

"Today"s English Version, however, is a"free translation and the expression "what"human nature does" is merely a paraphrase of what Paul actually said. The"Greek word used by Paul, sarx, means""flesh," not "human nature." For this"reason, literal translations speak here"of""the works of the flesh" to convey Paul"s"expression accurately in our modern tongue." (end quote)

There we see that the "works of our flesh" are not by some genetic predisposition but by willfulness on our part, a learned condition of man's poorly fed spirit.

Let us see if we can find other evidence that the WTB&TS knows the problem is not due to some imagined genetic inheritance. Look up and read the following articles published by the WTB&TS:

Watchtower 2002 6/1 pp. 9-12 Who Is to Blame " You or Your Genes?

Awake 1996 9/22 pp. 3-4 "It"s Not My Fault"

Awake 1996 9/22 pp. 4-8 Are We Predestined by Our Genes?

Knowledge that Leads to Everlasting Life 2006 - chap. 7 pp. 62-69 Chapter 7 What God Has Done to Save Mankind

Are you a member of the JW cult?

They won't allow me to be a member. But I think cult is a rather strong word to use as the word today is understood. They may consider me as an enemy but nothing could be further from the truth.

So what we see with regards to organizations like the WTB&TS is ambivalence as to the clear answer which has in fact existed within their publications for quite some time now. And that is likely caused of some disagreement among the governing members of these organizations so that they are unable to take a concrete stance on the subject. And for as much as they might fear me for pointing this out, it is not good for the sheep that they should continue in such evident indecisiveness, leaving the sheep to also be subject to confusion for the lack of a clear stance.

Start at the beginning and follow this carefully through the scriptures:

What did Adam and Eve's suddenly seeing their own nakedness really imply? Did it not merely imply that now, instead of completely trusting God to supply all of their needs both materially and spiritually, that they now had begun to doubt God and due to that doubt had begun to look to see what else God may have failed to tell them? And seeing that all the animals had been clothed of God with beautiful coats of fir and feathers, they now noticed things through a mind of doubt that was looking to see what they lacked. And so they imagined they had found fault with God, the beginning of a continuous growing away from listening to God and completely trusting him.

Thus, we find those two things spoken of together:

Genesis 3:21 "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of [animal] skins, and clothed them.
22 And the LORD God said, 'BEHOLD THE MAN HAS BECOME AS ONE OF US TO KNOW GOOD AND EVIL [FOR HIS OWN SELF]': and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.." (KJV)

Now, if Adam and Eve now believed in looking to find for their own selves what was good and what was evil, what do you suppose they would teach their offspring?

Proverbs 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

What do we find as we walk this thought through the scriptures from beginning to end?

Saynomore. So on the Kingdom Hall black-board, you are in the column of the goats, but you remain a wannabe sheep on the black-board of the JW cult.
ChopChop
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 7:30:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Gentorev, you said:
[quote]First of all, you must understand what Adam's sin was. If the first human being had not refused to be obedient to his ancestral spirit that dwelt within him, and instead chose to judge for himself, that which was good or bad, then we would all still be animals, blindly following our inherent animal instincts, having no concept of death as being the end to life.

It was this sin, (Disobedience to our indwelling parental spirit) which brought death into the lives of all of his descendants.[/quote]

We would need to discuss just what that spirit is and how that spirit comes to indwell us. I suspect we are close but not quite in agreement here as to what the scriptures show us.

Gentorev, you said:
[quote]Where in the uncorrupted scriptures does it say that the man Jesus was anything but a normal human being, who was born of two human parents, Mary and her half brother Joseph, who were both sired by the one father, "Alexander Helios=Heli?"[/quote]

No where in the unread into scriptures is such an idea discussed.

The New testament simply says, Hebrews 4:15 "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without [committing] sin.

Gentorev, you said:
[quote]Saynomore. So on the Kingdom Hall black-board, you are in the column of the goats, but you remain a wannabe sheep on the black-board of the JW cult.[/quote]

James 1:20 ".. the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God."

I find no commission of me in the scriptures to judge others so as to hate them.

Hate is best reserved for avoiding evil acts in our own walk of life.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,950
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 8:12:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 7:30:27 PM, ChopChop wrote:
Gentorev, you said:
[quote]First of all, you must understand what Adam's sin was. If the first human being had not refused to be obedient to his ancestral spirit that dwelt within him, and instead chose to judge for himself, that which was good or bad, then we would all still be animals, blindly following our inherent animal instincts, having no concept of death as being the end to life.

It was this sin, (Disobedience to our indwelling parental spirit) which brought death into the lives of all of his descendants.[/quote]

We would need to discuss just what that spirit is and how that spirit comes to indwell us. I suspect we are close but not quite in agreement here as to what the scriptures show us.


Gentorev, you said:
[quote]Where in the uncorrupted scriptures does it say that the man Jesus was anything but a normal human being, who was born of two human parents, Mary and her half brother Joseph, who were both sired by the one father, "Alexander Helios=Heli?"[/quote]

No where in the unread into scriptures is such an idea discussed.

The New testament simply says, Hebrews 4:15 "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without [committing] sin.

Gentorev, you said:
[quote]Saynomore. So on the Kingdom Hall black-board, you are in the column of the goats, but you remain a wannabe sheep on the black-board of the JW cult.[/quote]

James 1:20 ".. the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God."

I find no commission of me in the scriptures to judge others so as to hate them.

Hate is best reserved for avoiding evil acts in our own walk of life.

I have hatred toward no man, but I do know which sort of people to avoid and to ignore, such as BOG, MCB and their ILK. I have no desires to eat of their verbal dysentery.

Jesus did not sin, because Jesus was true to "WHO HE WAS" in his particular time. He was not true to who he used to be, nor to who he would become, but to "WHO I AM."

I am who I am, may I never lose sight
Of the fact that I am who I am day and night
I'm Not who I was Nor who i will be
For "WHO I AM" is the name that my God gave to me.

And so my friend, come soar with me
To the outer limits of reality
This universe, though wide it seems
Is but the shadow of our dreams
We are nought but knowledge in these tents
Refined through pain and punishment
We're the hive of man and neath His rod
We are one, we're the Son of God
The past, the present, the future is He
He was, He is, and He will be
And heaven is but a point in time
To where the spirit in man must climb
Eventually when He's there at last
And stands and gazes on His past
And takes the throne prepared in heaven
Then all His past will be forgiven.
I am who I am, the die is cast
For I was created by my past
And we who we are this very day
Determines His future in every way
If my past were changed, then who would I be?
One thing is certain, I wouldn't be me.........By Gentorev.

ChopChop wrote.........We would need to discuss just what that spirit is and how that spirit comes to indwell us. I suspect we are close but not quite in agreement here as to what the scriptures show us.

Gentorev............. You my friend, are the compilation of all the spirits=information of all your ancestors from all time, human and pre-human. That spirit does not come to dwell within you, the body in which "YOU" the mind=information=spirit is currently developing, is the tabernacle of your parental spirit, who dwells behind the veil to the inner most sanctuary of your body. And your parental spirit was within that body when it was born.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 8:30:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 3:58:02 PM, Raisor wrote:
A while ago I did a debate on Original Sin and whether the claim that Original Sin resulted in man's sinful nature is biblical:

http://www.debate.org...

There seem to be two sides of the issue:

The Biblical - How do we interpret New Testament passages like Romans 5 and how do we interpret the Creation story?

The philosophical - Does a sinful nature conflict with justice and personal responsibility?

I am interested to hear what others think about the issue. Did Adam's sin cause man's sinful nature? If Adam had not sinned, would the rest of humanity be less prone to sin?

No on the both counts. Frankly, I find it a bit preposterous that adam and eve were perfect until their decision to disobey God condemned all of humanity to be mired in sin.... Talk about unfair.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
ChopChop
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 9:44:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
We could easily get led astray of the topic by fanciful ideas concerning what exactly a man's spirit is, but I prefer another approach. I prefer to calmly and deliberately examine the scriptures for what the scriptures have to say.

O Cain"s sin the scriptures tell us, Genesis 4:5 "But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell."

We know the word, "wroth", there means, "angry", but what does the phrase mean, "his countenance fell?"

The word there translated as, "countenance", refers to the changing of a man's face as indicative of a man's fallen disposition or attitude toward something. In this case it was allowed by Cain's false pride.

Proverbs 29:23 "A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit."

In other words, Cain, due to pride, became angry and through that anger his entire view as to what was taking place was corrupted of the kind of resentment which comes of improperly jealous eyes.

This then falls right into line with what Cain had learned of his father's and mother's examples, who through a newly learned pride in themselves sought to judge for themselves what was good and what was bad. Not really knowing how to see accurately what is good and what is bad, but pridefully taking it upon himself to try through the anger of his hatred, rather than relying upon the faithfulness of God. Rather than being patient and trusting God to help him understand.

Now we know what it is that we were ignorant of:

Numbers 15:29-30 "Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them. But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people."

1 Peter 1:14 "As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance.."

Proverbs 14:29 "He that is slow to wrath is of great understanding: but he that is hasty of spirit exalteth folly."

Proverbs 16:18 "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."

We were taught to sin:

1 Corinthians 15:33-34 "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame."

We are now being mercifully re-educated in Jesus Christ to know how to sin not:

1 John 2:1 "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.."

Fanciful ideas born of men thinking independently of what the scriptures really teach hide this simple truth.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,950
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 9:47:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Continued from post #11.

The root to the word "BRAHMAN" originally meant "SPEECH", much the same as the "LOGOS" is said to mean "WORD," but both are in fact, the gathered genetic information of every universal body throughout all eternity. Both Brahman and Logos, should be seen as the essential divine reality of the universe the eternal spirit from which all being originates, and to which all must return.

You are body, soul and spirit. Your body is made up from the universal elements, and it is activated by the universal soul, which is the animating principle that pervades the entire universal body, activating everything within the universe, from the wave particles to the subatomic particles that make up the atoms which are the building blocks of the molecules from which the universal body is created. It is to the universal soul=LIFE-FORCE that all information = SPIRIT is gathered.

"YOU" the mind, are spirit. The body in which you, [The mind] are developing as the supreme head and controller of that body, is made up of the universal elements, which is activated by the soul [Animating life force] to which all the spirit [gathered information] of all your ancestors, human and prehuman, has been gathered in the evolution of whatever was in the beginning to become who you are, and that parental spirit dwells behind the veil to the inner most sanctuary of its earthly tabernacle=tent, which is your body.

If that body in which your parental spirit dwells, were born without the sense of sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, etc, then no information whatsoever could be taken into the brain, and "YOU" who are spirit [Gathered information] could never have begun to develop and the living body, in which the parental spirit dwells, would soon die, never having developed a personality = "CONTROLLING GODHEAD" to that body.

Then of the Thee in Me who works behind
The veil, I lifted up my hands to find
A lamp amid the Darkness; and I heard,
As from Without__ "The Me within Thee is blind.".... By Omar Khayyam.

When the body in which you [the mind] are being formed, dies, [This is the first death] and your body: "skin, flesh, muscle, blood, bone, brain matter etc, etc," has returned to the universal elements from which it was created, all that remains, is a shadow or rather, a facsimile of YOU = the mind=spirit, that has been imprinted into the universal life force=soul, from which it will be resurrected in the next cycle of universal activity. Unless of course, the information=spirit that is "YOU" is divided from the universal life-force, which is the second death. For the spirit=information that is you, can be divided from the universal soul----------"For the word of God is alive and active, sharper than any two edged sword. It cuts all the way through to the division of the soul and spirit."
'
The term, "THE WORD OF GOD," pertains to the sense that is identical to the term "LOGOS" or the mold. The mold by which the whole sense of a thing is given. In other words, the very plan from the outset. In Sanskrit the similar meaning is given in the use of the word 'vach.' Vach means word. But in Sanskrit teachings of the Sanatana Dharma, vach has many levels. Including where the word is first considered as being in the mind as a thought, not as the spoken word or speech.

We humans, may express in our spoken words, all the information that has been gathered through the senses of our bodies in the creation of the invisible minds=spirits that are "WE". Our word is the expression of "Who we are." Your words are the spirit that is "YOU" the mind.

But the "LOGOS=WORD" and BRAHMAN=SPEECH" who are the gathered information=spirit of the aeons, express the information that has been gathered to the universal soul as another universal body, which is in the image and likeness to the previous universe, [The Resurrection] in which the eternal Spirit=mind has and can continue to evolve.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 10:51:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Story book bible Adam & Eve DID NOT bring Death upon themselves through Sin nor anything else!

From Day 1 of their Creation they were both dependent on the Tree of Life to make them ' immortal / live forever ' hence they were Created MORTAL!

Those that preach their Snake-Oil otherwise like MCB are liars & deceivers according to their own propaganda!

QED
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 10:59:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 8:30:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/28/2015 3:58:02 PM, Raisor wrote:
A while ago I did a debate on Original Sin and whether the claim that Original Sin resulted in man's sinful nature is biblical:

http://www.debate.org...

There seem to be two sides of the issue:

The Biblical - How do we interpret New Testament passages like Romans 5 and how do we interpret the Creation story?

The philosophical - Does a sinful nature conflict with justice and personal responsibility?

I am interested to hear what others think about the issue. Did Adam's sin cause man's sinful nature? If Adam had not sinned, would the rest of humanity be less prone to sin?

No on the both counts. Frankly, I find it a bit preposterous that adam and eve were perfect until their decision to disobey God condemned all of humanity to be mired in sin.... Talk about unfair.
The preaching of supposed Sins being passed along & any one taking on themselves as a substitute for others is yet another LIE!

Deut. 24:16 & Ezek. 18:20 attest to that being a lie!
ChopChop
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 12:27:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 8:30:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote: No on the both counts. Frankly, I find it a bit preposterous that adam and eve were perfect until their decision to disobey God condemned all of humanity to be mired in sin.... Talk about unfair.

If perfection was some sort of an absolute then I would agree with you. But perfection is not an absolute. As used in the scriptures the word merely denotes that we are living up to God's reasonable expectation of us. God sets the standards for us to measure up to and he gave us the necessary innate abilities needed to do so when we properly use those traits.

That is why Noah could be said to be a man perfect in his generations:

Genesis 6:8-9 "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. "These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."
ChopChop
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 12:40:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 10:51:37 PM, Composer wrote:
Story book bible Adam & Eve DID NOT bring Death upon themselves through Sin nor anything else!

From Day 1 of their Creation they were both dependent on the Tree of Life to make them ' immortal / live forever ' hence they were Created MORTAL!

Those that preach their Snake-Oil otherwise like MCB are liars & deceivers according to their own propaganda!

QED


I don't really think MCB is typical of all who call themselves a JW. I have relatives among the JW's and know they can and do at times disagree among themselves, depending on how much they actually devote to study of the scriptures and their pubs which are merely said to be to assist in that study. Some seem not to know fully what their own literature teaches. But that is true for every church I have ever known.

You raise a very good point about that Tree of Life. But that is all God's gift of life to us is, dependency on the knowledge and wisdom of God who gave that life to us for the purpose that we could be a glory to ourselves and to him by how we live.

So to turn away from listening to God is to turn away from that Tree of Life.

Proverbs 3:12-18 ""For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth. Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. .................... She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her."
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 2:50:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 12:40:44 AM, ChopChop wrote:
At 3/28/2015 10:51:37 PM, Composer wrote:
Story book bible Adam & Eve DID NOT bring Death upon themselves through Sin nor anything else!

From Day 1 of their Creation they were both dependent on the Tree of Life to make them ' immortal / live forever ' hence they were Created MORTAL!

Those that preach their Snake-Oil otherwise like MCB are liars & deceivers according to their own propaganda!

QED


I don't really think MCB is typical of all who call themselves a JW. I have relatives among the JW's and know they can and do at times disagree among themselves, depending on how much they actually devote to study of the scriptures and their pubs which are merely said to be to assist in that study. Some seem not to know fully what their own literature teaches. But that is true for every church I have ever known.

You raise a very good point about that Tree of Life. But that is all God's gift of life to us is, dependency on the knowledge and wisdom of God who gave that life to us for the purpose that we could be a glory to ourselves and to him by how we live.

So to turn away from listening to God is to turn away from that Tree of Life.

Proverbs 3:12-18 ""For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth. Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. .................... She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her."

Thanks ChopChop but the bible itself proves the biblical God is a narcissistic LIAR & Deceiver & Adam & Eve soon figured that out and did well to also heed the advice of the Truth telling Genesis Serpent!!
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 2:53:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 7:30:27 PM, ChopChop wrote:
Gentorev, you said:
[quote]First of all, you must understand what Adam's sin was. If the first human being had not refused to be obedient to his ancestral spirit that dwelt within him, and instead chose to judge for himself, that which was good or bad, then we would all still be animals, blindly following our inherent animal instincts, having no concept of death as being the end to life.

It was this sin, (Disobedience to our indwelling parental spirit) which brought death into the lives of all of his descendants.
Being threatened with divine consequences is an outright denial of a freewill!

freewill: The power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies (WordWeb)
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 2:58:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 12:40:44 AM, ChopChop wrote:
At 3/28/2015 10:51:37 PM, Composer wrote:
Story book bible Adam & Eve DID NOT bring Death upon themselves through Sin nor anything else!

From Day 1 of their Creation they were both dependent on the Tree of Life to make them ' immortal / live forever ' hence they were Created MORTAL!

Those that preach their Snake-Oil otherwise like MCB are liars & deceivers according to their own propaganda!

QED


I don't really think MCB is typical of all who call themselves a JW. I have relatives among the JW's and know they can and do at times disagree among themselves, depending on how much they actually devote to study of the scriptures and their pubs which are merely said to be to assist in that study. Some seem not to know fully what their own literature teaches. But that is true for every church I have ever known.
Pity you can't get them to provide their personal details, Kingdom Hall etc. and come here to answer questions, because they face dis-fellowship & shunning IF they dare openly disagree! (Douglas-Walsh Trial Transcript, Scotland, 1954)

It is therefore forbidden for them to openly argue, they must cow-tow to their masters in Bethel!

Cowards they are!
Gentorev
Posts: 2,950
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 3:32:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 2:53:25 AM, Composer wrote:
At 3/28/2015 7:30:27 PM, ChopChop wrote:
Gentorev, you said:
[quote]First of all, you must understand what Adam's sin was. If the first human being had not refused to be obedient to his ancestral spirit that dwelt within him, and instead chose to judge for himself, that which was good or bad, then we would all still be animals, blindly following our inherent animal instincts, having no concept of death as being the end to life.

It was this sin, (Disobedience to our indwelling parental spirit) which brought death into the lives of all of his descendants.
Being threatened with divine consequences is an outright denial of a freewill!

freewill: The power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies (WordWeb)

All physical life form must die, but the concept of death as the end of life, did not exist until mankind refused to obey the indwelling parental animal instinct, which was his inheritance.
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 4:57:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 3:58:02 PM, Raisor wrote:
I am interested to hear what others think about the issue. Did Adam's sin cause man's sinful nature? If Adam had not sinned, would the rest of humanity be less prone to sin?

I have understood that Adam and Eve caused that we born to this world and we are apart from God. They rejected God and because of that, we also are without connection to God naturally. Sin is basically to reject God, or to live without God. (Sin can also mean mistake or act against the Law). If Adam would not have rejected God, we could maybe also be with God as Adam and Eve were before they rejected God and were expelled from the paradise. If we would be born to paradise with God, I think it could be that we would then by ourselves choose to reject God (sin).
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 5:49:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Whether Biblical or not the idea of 'original sin' is a nonsense. A new born baby hasn't had the chance to do anything wrong, has it?
Gentorev
Posts: 2,950
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 5:52:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 10:59:03 PM, Composer wrote:
At 3/28/2015 8:30:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/28/2015 3:58:02 PM, Raisor wrote:
A while ago I did a debate on Original Sin and whether the claim that Original Sin resulted in man's sinful nature is biblical:

http://www.debate.org...

There seem to be two sides of the issue:

The Biblical - How do we interpret New Testament passages like Romans 5 and how do we interpret the Creation story?

The philosophical - Does a sinful nature conflict with justice and personal responsibility?

I am interested to hear what others think about the issue. Did Adam's sin cause man's sinful nature? If Adam had not sinned, would the rest of humanity be less prone to sin?

No on the both counts. Frankly, I find it a bit preposterous that adam and eve were perfect until their decision to disobey God condemned all of humanity to be mired in sin.... Talk about unfair.
The preaching of supposed Sins being passed along & any one taking on themselves as a substitute for others is yet another LIE!

Deut. 24:16 & Ezek. 18:20 attest to that being a lie!


The Son of Man, who is the spirit that is currently developing within the body of mankind, and who is the compilation of all mankind, is born with the death of the body in which he develops, And it is HE, not the man Jesus through whom he revealed himself to the world, who pays the death penalty for the sins of the body in which he develops.

But how could an atheist who is totally ignorant to the truths that are revealed in the Holy Scriptures, be expected to understand the deeper hidden secrets within God's word?
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 6:01:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 3:32:35 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/29/2015 2:53:25 AM, Composer wrote:
At 3/28/2015 7:30:27 PM, ChopChop wrote:
Gentorev, you said:
[quote]First of all, you must understand what Adam's sin was. If the first human being had not refused to be obedient to his ancestral spirit that dwelt within him, and instead chose to judge for himself, that which was good or bad, then we would all still be animals, blindly following our inherent animal instincts, having no concept of death as being the end to life.

It was this sin, (Disobedience to our indwelling parental spirit) which brought death into the lives of all of his descendants.
Being threatened with divine consequences is an outright denial of a freewill!

freewill: The power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies (WordWeb)

All physical life form must die, but the concept of death as the end of life, did not exist until mankind refused to obey the indwelling parental animal instinct, which was his inheritance.
But the point remains apparently obvlivious to YOU & some others, that bible Story book LIED! that they brought Death upon themselves!
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 6:05:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 5:52:47 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/28/2015 10:59:03 PM, Composer wrote:
At 3/28/2015 8:30:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/28/2015 3:58:02 PM, Raisor wrote:
A while ago I did a debate on Original Sin and whether the claim that Original Sin resulted in man's sinful nature is biblical:

http://www.debate.org...

There seem to be two sides of the issue:

The Biblical - How do we interpret New Testament passages like Romans 5 and how do we interpret the Creation story?

The philosophical - Does a sinful nature conflict with justice and personal responsibility?

I am interested to hear what others think about the issue. Did Adam's sin cause man's sinful nature? If Adam had not sinned, would the rest of humanity be less prone to sin?

No on the both counts. Frankly, I find it a bit preposterous that adam and eve were perfect until their decision to disobey God condemned all of humanity to be mired in sin.... Talk about unfair.
The preaching of supposed Sins being passed along & any one taking on themselves as a substitute for others is yet another LIE!

Deut. 24:16 & Ezek. 18:20 attest to that being a lie!


The Son of Man, who is the spirit that is currently developing within the body of mankind, and who is the compilation of all mankind, is born with the death of the body in which he develops, And it is HE, not the man Jesus through whom he revealed himself to the world, who pays the death penalty for the sins of the body in which he develops.

But how could an atheist who is totally ignorant to the truths that are revealed in the Holy Scriptures, be expected to understand the deeper hidden secrets within God's word?
Show us -

1. That the Source of ANY acclaimed ' holy-text ' came from or was given by a literal Supernatural being?

2. Until then your scriptures remain ' holey ' human devised propaganda!

Gentorev
Posts: 2,950
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 6:35:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 6:05:13 AM, Composer wrote:
At 3/29/2015 5:52:47 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/28/2015 10:59:03 PM, Composer wrote:
At 3/28/2015 8:30:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/28/2015 3:58:02 PM, Raisor wrote:
A while ago I did a debate on Original Sin and whether the claim that Original Sin resulted in man's sinful nature is biblical:

http://www.debate.org...

There seem to be two sides of the issue:

The Biblical - How do we interpret New Testament passages like Romans 5 and how do we interpret the Creation story?

The philosophical - Does a sinful nature conflict with justice and personal responsibility?

I am interested to hear what others think about the issue. Did Adam's sin cause man's sinful nature? If Adam had not sinned, would the rest of humanity be less prone to sin?

No on the both counts. Frankly, I find it a bit preposterous that adam and eve were perfect until their decision to disobey God condemned all of humanity to be mired in sin.... Talk about unfair.
The preaching of supposed Sins being passed along & any one taking on themselves as a substitute for others is yet another LIE!

Deut. 24:16 & Ezek. 18:20 attest to that being a lie!


The Son of Man, who is the spirit that is currently developing within the body of mankind, and who is the compilation of all mankind, is born with the death of the body in which he develops, And it is HE, not the man Jesus through whom he revealed himself to the world, who pays the death penalty for the sins of the body in which he develops.

But how could an atheist who is totally ignorant to the truths that are revealed in the Holy Scriptures, be expected to understand the deeper hidden secrets within God's word?
Show us -

1. That the Source of ANY acclaimed ' holy-text ' came from or was given by a literal Supernatural being?

2. Until then your scriptures remain ' holey ' human devised propaganda!




Do you believe that mankind was a product of the evolution of that which was in the very beginning, before Space and time came into being?

If so, then you must believe that the spirit of man developed within the animal kingdom from which he evolved.

Unless you believe that mankind is the end of the evolutionary process, you must accept that a new species can evolve from the body of mankind, and that the new life-form, may not necessary be a physical three dimensional being.

You cannot know that the MOST HIGH in the creation (THE SON OF MAN) is a fourth dimensional being, who can travel through space and time, and although he has not yet been born according to your concept of one directional linear time, when the umbilical cord that binds him to the body in which he is currently developing, is severed, he descends through time to the very beginning before space and time came into being, and that he knows everything that you have ever done or will every do according to your own free will, which was all done in his past.

An atheist is one who believes that there is no God. Prove to me, that the supreme Personality of Godhead, the MOST HIGH in the creation, to develop within this universal body, was not in the beginning as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.

Prove to me that the life=personalty within the LOGOS, was not the "LIGHT OF MAN", all the wisdom, knowledge and insight, that was gained from the body of mankind in which he had developed/is developing.
ChopChop
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 7:28:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 4:57:41 AM, 12_13 wrote:
At 3/28/2015 3:58:02 PM, Raisor wrote:
I am interested to hear what others think about the issue. Did Adam's sin cause man's sinful nature? If Adam had not sinned, would the rest of humanity be less prone to sin?

I have understood that Adam and Eve caused that we born to this world and we are apart from God. They rejected God and because of that, we also are without connection to God naturally. Sin is basically to reject God, or to live without God. (Sin can also mean mistake or act against the Law). If Adam would not have rejected God, we could maybe also be with God as Adam and Eve were before they rejected God and were expelled from the paradise. If we would be born to paradise with God, I think it could be that we would then by ourselves choose to reject God (sin).

I like your thinking there, 12_13. It shows a real effort on your part to avoid interpreting by way of bias, a thing not everyone is even aware of the potential in them for doing.

You are correct that the basic connotation of sin means merely that one misses a set mark or standard, and that can be physically as in being born to imperfect physical health or spiritually/mentally as in lacking the the right kinds of food-like knowledge to nourish our thinking ability and deductive powers in God's image. The latter being what the following statement of Jesus was about: Matthew 5:6 "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled."

Verse 3 there in Matthew 5 is also interesting: Matthew 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." That statement corresponds to thoughts such as are expressed at Psalms 34:18; Psalms 51:17; Isaiah 66:2 concerning the humbly contrite heart which God is able to give help as it is a heart that will accept help.

Both Matthew 5:3 and 5:6 are summed up in Luke 6:25 "Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep." And that being full can easily be due to stubbornness of beliefs we gulped down while being ignorant that those beliefs were mistaken in their views.

Incomplete ideas can be almost as bad as mistaken ideas when man's pride becomes involved with defending those ideas. The following statement by Composer, speaks to that fact: "The preaching of supposed Sins being passed along & any one taking on themselves as a substitute for others is yet another LIE! Deut. 24:16 & Ezek. 18:20 attest to that being a lie!"

Many do believe that Jesus took on our sins as a substitute for others. But the real answer to what Jesus did, how Jesus became a sacrifice for our sins, and how our sins were figuratively lain upon him is actually very simple to understand, when someone who does understand it explains it to us.

Now is where you can use your imagination properly to empathize with what Jesus did for us. Imagine that there is a great big house with much family living in it, all of who were suffering and dying prematurely because the knowledge they believed in was seriously flawed and causing that unfortunate situation to themselves.

Now imagine that you are born into that family and for one reason or another you were the only one in that house who was able to see and understand that the beliefs in this house were flawed and causing the torments and death which plagued that house. We should know even from debates sites such as this one how popular you would be when you tried to help the rest of the house to learn what you know that they might get free of their trouble-causing beliefs. Some, if not many, in that house would likely hate you for trying to help them, and some would perhaps even hate you enough to want you to die so that they could be rid of your trying to help them understand.

There we approach the question as to how great your love for the members in that household is. Would you be willing to die at their hands if it meant that enough of them in that house might learn life-saving truth through you and that household thus stand a better shot at surviving? If your love is that great, then by the willingness of your love to do good for others you are a sacrifice for those you love: John 15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

If you did that and some of that house did gather and kill you for your love of them, then would it not be true that you willing let their sin be laid upon you for the sake of saving as many as possible among them? Surely it was their sin which killed you. I can think of no more effective way of someone laying their sins on me than to kill me because of their sins. There is nothing mystical or magical about that is there?

Nether is there anything mystical or magical about any of this but what has been falsely imagined by men. You are like an atonement for the sin of the people in that hose purely because you were able to impart true knowledge with which they could be made right with God. And that is why the value of what you did only covers those who embrace what you taught. Any are welcome to embrace what you taught, but none are set right with God unless they do embrace what you taught, for it is what you taught which when a man lives by it sets them right with God.

Your child might go against what you taught them was right and offend you to their own harm. How does that child makes matters right between you and he and for his self? Isaiah 55:7 "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."

There is nothing mystical or magical about any of that and it is sad how so many hide this truth, being overly proud of their own intelligence so that they cannot understand and their views poisoning others so that neither do they understand.

What about Romans chapter 7? Is it really true that Paul teaches a sin nature inseparable for our body of flesh? No, not when Paul is understood. Paul was clearly speaking as if he were once again the man before he found the life-giving knowledge of God's righteousness taught by Christ:

Romans 6:19 "I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness."

There at Romans 6:19 the Greek word translated as, "infirmity", merely means that the flesh is lacking on it's own what it needs to be firm as in holy. It in no way infers that flesh cannot be made firm as in holy. God does not accept unholy sacrifices: Romans 12:1 "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."

If you were loving that household, as discussed earlier, to really be effective at helping that house you would need to be unblemished like the lamb was required to be under the Old Law (which was but a picture of all of this). For, to the extent you were yet blemished by sin you could not teach others to do any better than yourself. You could not teach what you do not know and if you were yet blemished by sin then that would prove that you did not really know how to become unblemished as in made clean. And then nether would your sacrifice per Romans 12:1 be acceptable to God. For why should he accept something from you knowing that to do so would only harm you by making you believe you were OK? That is no different than you requiring that your child learn to do things right. If you were a carpenter and teaching your child to be a carpenter then you would know that to let your child off with cutting corners in his learning was not helping the child to be a carpenter. Should we expect God to do any differently?

These things are all so very
ChopChop
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 7:39:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
These things are all so very simple if we can only get free of how man has complicated the view to them with their ideas of inheriting spirits through natural birth, things they quite obviously have no way to prove or to really even understand.

To understand that which is simple we must keep it simple:

Matthew 18:3-4 "And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

But men even have turned that kingdom, the quality of which is as that of heaven, into something complicated to debate about.