Man, inherently evil?
Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.
Regret
Genesis 1:31
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day
I don't understand the idea that men are inherently evil. I don't feel like researching the scripture references, so if someone wants to share their views on the subject feel free, although I might disagree
Alliance
We are what we make of ourselves.
Justbyfaith
Originally posted by Regret
Genesis 1:31
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day
I don't understand the idea that men are inherently evil. I don't feel like researching the scripture references, so if someone wants to share their views on the subject feel free, although I might disagree
It was good...until sin entered into the equation by the free will of the first man.
Regret
Originally posted by Justbyfaith
It was good...until sin entered into the equation by the free will of the first man.
But how does Adam's sin make all his descendants inherently evil, I have never understood this concept in mainstream Christianity.
(BBL, have to run for a couple hours)
Alliance
Originally posted by Justbyfaith
It was good...until sin entered into the equation by the free will of the first man.
I love this...as soon as thought and intellectual symbols enter the picture...evil is born!
Life's better if you're a sock
Mindship
No. Inherently horny.
Justbyfaith
Originally posted by Regret
But how does Adam's sin make all his descendants inherently evil, I have never understood this concept in mainstream Christianity.
(BBL, have to run for a couple hours)
Great question Regret! Here is your answer from the God we both love.
"For by one man's (Adam) disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one man's (Christ-God incarnate) many will be made righteous."
Romans 5:19
This again is why Jesus is needed by all! Because only He can and has made the attonement for the sin that was transfered to all of us by Adam.
Again, only God can be without sin and this is why Jesus came and died for us.
Alliance
If Regret was satisfied with your/his gods answer...perhaps he wouldn't have asked the question?
Justbyfaith
Originally posted by Alliance
I love this...as soon as thought and intellectual symbols enter the picture...evil is born!
Life's better if you're a sock
True...I would rather be cotton than wool...less itchy.
Justbyfaith
Originally posted by Alliance
If Regret was satisfied with your/his gods answer...perhaps he wouldn't have asked the question?
Don't you need a question first like he asked before he could get the answer? HELLO? ANTBODY OUT THERE? CALLING MAJOR TOM TO GROUND CONTROL>
Alliance
I'm saying that if he had the question...and the answer from his BOM, and he was satisfied...he wouldn't have asked it on the forum.
Copaani mirshmure'cye, vod?
Justbyfaith
Originally posted by Alliance
I'm saying that if he had the question...and the answer from his BOM, and he was satisfied...he wouldn't have asked it on the forum.
Copaani mirshmure'cye, vod?
Ah....ya.
Cyric Blackstar
Read Lord of the Flies...
Personally evil or good aside I think deep down were all savage beasts.
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png
Darth Macabre
Originally posted by Cyric Blackstar
Read Lord of the Flies...
Personally evil or good aside I think deep down were all savage beasts.
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png
We all have animal instincts, but as for morality...When you're born you're a clean slate, a la "Tabula Rosa"....It's your choices that decide if you're good or evil.
Templares
The concept of (Adam's) Original Sin and the fact that its inheritable is one of the easiest ways for the Church to earn mone- . . . . i mean to go sanctimonius on you.
peejayd
* yes, but the truth is, there is no "original sin" that was inherited by every child born from Adam and Eve... another false doctrine from Catholic church...
Regret
Thank you everyone that has posted.
My personal belief is that by partaking of the fruit, which violated the commandment of God in the statement:
Adam and Eve transgressed. I believe that this made man capable of sin by giving man the knowledge of good and evil. Before that he did not know better. So man entered a state where evil was possible for him because he now had knowledge of good and evil. I do not believe in original sin.
Mormons believe that until the age of eight parents are responsible for teaching their children to choose "good" over "evil." By the age of eight a child should have learned enough to make decisions about right and wrong, given proper parental instruction. As such at eight we believe baptism should occur, this to wash away the sins committed in ignorance as they learned. Although a child younger than eight would not be held accountable for those sins, his/her parents would be. The verses I believe support the age are:
The term figure I believe refers to the number. Which could also refer to a time frame other than eight years (i.e. days could be an interpretation, but I do not believe an eight day old would be able to show "good conscience toward God" and so infant baptism does not seem to fit this requirement.) This reference and interpretation is solely based on my readings, and is not LDS church doctrine, I have never heard such spoken anywhere.
I am not arguing the point merely stating my opinion, I hope that people will argue the point, I always find it interesting, but to tell the truth I do not know of Biblical verses that necessarily contradict the original sin concept, and don't really feel like researching it at the moment. I would like to hear the verses if Peejayd has them to support a stance against original sin. If the argument comes up at some other time it would be nice to know the references.
Alliance, you are right, I did have my answer to the question. I did pose the question only with the intent to learn the reason they believed this, and to see if there was any support for the concept since I knew of none. I had hoped there would be more debate on the subject, but I myself am ill equipped to debate the concept.
LizzyT123
um, my english teacher once told me we were litterally parasites. Others life forms do not benefit from us, yet we benefit from those life forms. I kinda feel hopeless......but oh well.
Lord Urizen
"Original Sin" is that whole idea that we inheritted Adam and Eve's evil, and therefore are all born with a taint on our souls....therefore the sacrament of Baptism was brought up as a way to "cleanse" ourselves and enter God's church.
I don't buy into the whole idea that MANKIND is born evil...but I do not think mankind of born good either. However, i do not think that mankind as a whole is born neutral either......
I think every individual is different....
Many people beleive that "evil" or "immorality" is developed through nurture and influences.
I can agree, except for the fact that I beleive "evil" or "cruelty" for a better word, can be nature/genetically given as well.
Why do some loving parents give birth to such a cruel child? Sometimes this happens.....
Why do some hateful and abusive parents give birth to loving and tender children? And i am not counting classroom influences, i am only counting the child's personality on its own......
I wondor....can Cruelty actually be genetic as well as taught?.....not spiritually given, but physiologically?
Regret
Originally posted by LizzyT123
um, my english teacher once told me we were litterally parasites. Others life forms do not benefit from us, yet we benefit from those life forms. I kinda feel hopeless......but oh well.
All creatures that eat are parasites in the same manner man is. Lifeforms benefit from us, we are a large waste producer, many creatures survive on our waste. There are other benefits man provides, the issue at the moment is that we do not die often enough to maintain the balance that may have existed in the past, so it looks like nothing is benefiting from our existence.
LizzyT123
Originally posted by Regret
All creatures that eat are parasites in the same manner man is. Lifeforms benefit from us, we are a large waste producer, many creatures survive on our waste. There are other benefits man provides, the issue at the moment is that we do not die often enough to maintain the balance that may have existed in the past, so it looks like nothing is benefiting from our existence.
wow, good way to put it
peejayd
* according to the Bible...
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Ezekiel 18:20
* there is no such thing as "original sin"...
Regret
Originally posted by peejayd
* according to the Bible...
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Ezekiel 18:20
* there is no such thing as "original sin"...
This does contradict the idea of original sin. What is the Jewish belief on the subject? Do they have a stance? I would assume that their belief would hold some clues as to the stance that is more correct. If original sin existed then they would have had belief in it from the point of Adam. Or, if original sin did not exist then they would not have the belief. Unless there was no knowledge given men of this until the New Testament? I can't believe God would leave thousands of years of people without knowledge of it if they were subject to it.
Darth Macabre
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I think every individual is different....
Many people beleive that "evil" or "immorality" is developed through nurture and influences.
I can agree, except for the fact that I beleive "evil" or "cruelty" for a better word, can be nature/genetically given as well.
Why do some loving parents give birth to such a cruel child? Sometimes this happens.....
Why do some hateful and abusive parents give birth to loving and tender children? And i am not counting classroom influences, i am only counting the child's personality on its own......
I wondor....can Cruelty actually be genetic as well as taught?.....not spiritually given, but physiologically?
Ah, the classic "Nature vs Nurture" argument.
Regret
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Ah, the classic "Nature vs Nurture" argument.
My opinion on this is twofold:
1) My beliefs and my opinion based on them:
I believe in pre-earth existence as spirits for some period of time unknown. During this time we existed with God. Thus we had an enormous amount of exposure to specific ways of behaving. I believe that that knowledge was for the most part lost when we entered a physical body. The physical body has its tendencies, some of which are in conflict with the behaviors learned as a spirit. This life is partially us learning to control the physical, or natural, man. So preexistence could provide explanation of some behaviors.
2) If I ignore my beliefs:
Man is one of the few creatures that does not have fixed action patterns. Most everything man does is learned. Most thought processes are the result of interaction with the environment in attaining the requirements of the physical form. Complex systems "evolve", are shaped, through consistent patterns during early experience.
Mei Amor
Man is inherently selfish.
Darth Macabre
Originally posted by Regret
2) If I ignore my beliefs:
Man is one of the few creatures that does not have fixed action patterns. Most everything man does is learned. Most thought processes are the result of interaction with the environment in attaining the requirements of the physical form. Complex systems "evolve", are shaped, through consistent patterns during early experience.
So tell me...If all things are "learned" then what would happen if you're abandoned out in the middle of nowhere....Would instincts not kick in for survival?
Now, another example...Two brothers are raised by the same parents. They are treated kindly and fairly. They are taught the same exact things. When they grow up, one becomes a benevolent force. Lending his money out to save the world. The other however, becomes an evil, corrupted man who is selfish down to the core...So, where did the good guy learn to become good? Where did the evil guy learn to be evil?
Regret
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
So tell me...If all things are "learned" then what would happen if you're abandoned out in the middle of nowhere....Would instincts not kick in for survival?
Now, another example...Two brothers are raised by the same parents. They are treated kindly and fairly. They are taught the same exact things. When they grow up, one becomes a benevolent force. Lending his money out to save the world. The other however, becomes an evil, corrupted man who is selfish down to the core...So, where did the good guy learn to become good? Where did the evil guy learn to be evil?
Don't bother arguing the point unless you actually have knowledge of the subject. I have studied it for ten years at the university level, and worked with it for a few more now. Do some real research, then come argue it with me. I will not defend fact against an ignorant that takes umbrage at my statements.
There are few instincts that would "kick in for survival." You would attempt to eat something. Why, because your stomach would create a sensation that the only way to stop would be to put something into it. You might cover yourself in some way in the cold. Why? Because you would be separating yourself from that cold, instinct? Still don't think it could be enough to keep you from dying if not done properly. If you were abandoned as a baby? Yes, you would die. Without the experiences you have you would not learn to take care of yourself, period.
"They are taught the same exact things." Impossible, will never happen, and has never happened. It's a hypothetical piece of crap that would never occur in the real world. It can't occur because parents are incapable of controlling the environment, the brothers experience will not be the same. Why would it occur? Because the guy learned to be "good", other guy "evil", by the consequence of the actions taken. From a purely scientific stance the whole thing is crap. The psychology that hypothesises such situations is built on inferential statistics alone, with little if any facts involved. These statistical studies most often show a 5% chance of being in error that anyone using them will acknowledge. Given that current psychology outside of Behavior Analysis and Physiological Psychology has studies based on studies based on studies, and etc., that are all based on statistics, the current studies have a huge amount of possible error. Anything based in statistics that uses a study based on statistics as reference compounds possible error, although in the current study they will fail to mention that. Therefore, unless a study is the initial statistical reference, it should be up to high skeptical review.
Now finally, since there is no possible way for this to occur, and that it never has occurred, your argument has no evidence to support it other than your hypothetical that would not occur. Man is a species that would die as an infant if not raised by something. He is horribly under-prepared for the environment because he is too adaptable. If man is raised, then his adaptability becomes an asset, but prior to raising, his adaptability is a result of the absence of the majority of instinct that most of the animal kingdom enjoys, and has no initial value.
Darth Macabre
Originally posted by Regret
Don't bother arguing the point unless you actually have knowledge of the subject. I have studied it for ten years at the university level, and worked with it for a few more now. Do some real research, then come argue it with me. I will not defend fact against an ignorant that takes umbrage at my statements.
Don't you dare insult my intelligence....You said you wanted a debate did you not? Well if your opinion is the ONLY one that's correct, then in truth, you wanted no debate...You wanted people to praise you for your knowledge.
You answered my question...By over analyzing, you proved me correct...Thank you.
You didn't learn to eat...Your stomach created a sensation...Therefore, it's an instinct to eat.
There are a set of cousins that live down the street from my former Soc professor...They were both home schooled, and basically raised inside the same house...When they entered College level classes, one wanted to go out and travel the world, while the other wished to stay inside his enclosed world....One wanted to lose his naivety, while the other wanted to stay ignorant....So tell me, was that not the real world?
Adaptability is the single trait that would keep us alive in the wilderness. It's what makes us different, dare I say, better then other animals...I understand what you're saying, but I have a different opinion.
LizzyT123
alright, to be an ass, I don't know why man, wonders about their existence and "sin" because of a book?
cking
man is not evil, Walmart executives are
Alliance
Originally posted by Stealth Agent
So to answer the question is Man, inherently evil? I beleive yes but it depends on your view of evil.
A valid point, but not an answer.
Bardock42
Since morality (good and evil) is a man made concept I think it is hardly possible for men to be inherently evil.
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Bardock42
Since morality (good and evil) is a man made concept I think it is hardly possible for men to be inherently evil.
They are not man-made concepts. They are adjectives used to describe things that we as human beings like or dislike...gain pleasure from or suffer from.
The things that we describe as "good" or "evil" already existed before we came up with the words for it.
Bardock42
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
They are not man-made concepts. They are adjectives used to describe things that we as human beings like or dislike...gain pleasure from or suffer from.
The things that we describe as "good" or "evil" already existed before we came up with the words for it.
Seems man-made it me.
debbiejo
People IMO are not evil, but react to what they've been exposed to. We label things as such...ie good and evil........Some learn from what they've sown and some do not........Man is not evil.............Man is only man........
Regret
Originally posted by cking
man is not evil, Walmart executives are
And they aren't men, they're monsters animals_bunny2 {--Monster
Regret
Originally posted by Bardock42
Since morality (good and evil) is a man made concept I think it is hardly possible for men to be inherently evil.
So which came first evil or the man?
Alliance
evil's a judgemental point of view on a point of view
therefore since man judges....man came first.
but since man comes first...man cannot be inherently evil
debbiejo
What the hell............god created an evil persona with thoughts and actions..????
Man created what we would call evil...................
Regret
Originally posted by debbiejo
What the hell............god created an evil persona with thoughts and actions..????
Man created what we would call evil...................
Regret
What the hell? I got lost somewhere in all of that smilie-ing
Gay Guy
Originally posted by Regret
Genesis 1:31
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day
I don't understand the idea that men are inherently evil. I don't feel like researching the scripture references, so if someone wants to share their views on the subject feel free, although I might disagree
Uhh..i think you left out the rest of the story..like ya know..the whole "tree of knowledge good/evil" thing...
Regret
Originally posted by Gay Guy
Uhh..i think you left out the rest of the story..like ya know..the whole "tree of knowledge good/evil" thing...
Yeah, but man was a good creation, did the tree make the creation evil?
Gay Guy
Originally posted by Regret
Yeah, but man was a good creation, did the tree make the creation evil?
Nah, the choice that the creation made made the creation evil..
Regret
Originally posted by Gay Guy
Nah, the choice that the creation made made the creation evil..
and so Adam's son was evil because his father made a poor choice?
Alliance
Yes...because god is forgiving
Trickster
Originally posted by Gay Guy
Nah, the choice that the creation made made the creation evil..
So he had to make a choice between two things, which were (to him) neither wrong nor right?
Considering that he hadn't yet eaten from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he didn't know that obeying God and not eating would be good. Neither did he know that eating from the tree was bad. Can it really be a sin if he didn't know it was wrong?
In fact, was there a choice at all? Adam didn't know the consequences of his action either way, and nor did he know that any action was right or wrong.
Justbyfaith
Originally posted by peejayd
* yes, but the truth is, there is no "original sin" that was inherited by every child born from Adam and Eve... another false doctrine from Catholic church...
Must not have read Romans 5:18 lately.
Stealth Agent
Im confused are we discussing from the christian point of view is Man inherentley evil?
Or from the scientific point of view?
From the christian yes, because there born with orignal sin.
From the scientific no, because evil is only a word a point of view.
Meus Amor
Originally posted by Bardock42
Seems man-made it me.
Alliance
Originally posted by Stealth Agent
From the scientific no, because evil is only a word a point of view.
Thats not really a scientific view, but mor of an enlighteded philisophical one.
Regret
Originally posted by Stealth Agent
Im confused are we discussing from the christian point of view is Man inherentley evil?
Or from the scientific point of view?
From the christian yes, because there born with orignal sin.
From the scientific no, because evil is only a word a point of view.
It is the Christian one. I was responding to another post, and it got a bit scientific.
Alliance
wasnt it a "fruit"
peejayd
Originally posted by Regret
This does contradict the idea of original sin. What is the Jewish belief on the subject? Do they have a stance? I would assume that their belief would hold some clues as to the stance that is more correct. If original sin existed then they would have had belief in it from the point of Adam. Or, if original sin did not exist then they would not have the belief. Unless there was no knowledge given men of this until the New Testament? I can't believe God would leave thousands of years of people without knowledge of it if they were subject to it.
* yes, it contradict... now, according to theologists, what is the original sin?
~ the condition of sin that marks all humans as a result of Adam's first act of disobedience.
~ a sin inherited by all descendants of Adam ; "Adam and Even committed the original sin when they ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden".
* but the Bible says:
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son ; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Ezekiel 18:20
* a very blatant statement... "... the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." and vice versa... it is very clear, my friend...
* and, do infants and children have sins? let's hear from Christ Himself...
"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven ."
Matthew 19:14
* for Christ to say this, children are innocent, children have no sins... but what is the baptism for?
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
Acts 2:38
* for the remission or forgiveness of sins... which was not in children... because "... of such is the kingdom of heaven..."
Regret
Thanks Peejayd, the quotes are good.
Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Regret
Genesis 1:31
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day
I don't understand the idea that men are inherently evil. I don't feel like researching the scripture references, so if someone wants to share their views on the subject feel free, although I might disagree
The Biblical concept of mankind inherently evil and/or sinful if absurd. Pelagius was right - if it all did exist, then there is no way people born today should still be being punished for the sins of Adam and Eve. It fundamentally destroys the Christian claim of free will if people are to be tared with the same brush as the original sinners. It takes away our choice to sin we are automatically sinful.
Beside, I believe mankind is inherently neutral. Many morals and ethics are fundamentally the product of social conditioning. After all, a good, law abiding Roman brought to todays world would be considered a criminal, maybe even a monster. Take a native from one of the deep Amazonian villages and drop him in New York - due to the different social constraints he would inevitably do something criminal - of course he wouldn't know this.
Then there are deeper instincts - thou shall not kill is, in my opinion, more of something ingrained from non-sentient days. It can be overcome (a murderer, or a soldier, or in self defense.) But over all when a human is born they are neutral - not evil or really good. They will develop into such categories as life goes on.
Alliance
Originally posted by Regret
Thanks Peejayd, the quotes are good.
Yes but where's the logic?
Arcana
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yes, all human suffering has occured do the the fact that a man ate an apple
Strawman.
You are attacking the symbolism and not the actual idea behind the symbol. The Bible is a book of symbolism (however far to many take it as literal)
Whether or not Adam simply represents the original group of homo sapieans (or whatever the hell they were called please forgive my spelling) or an actual man named Adam doesn't matter. It's the point of the story that matters.
The idea of the passage as that man disobeyed God in attempt to be like God by gaining the knowledge of good or evil. It does not matter to me how it happened or if their was even a "Garden of Eden". What matters is the point behind the story.
Man rebels against God and says "We wish to govern own lives." God says "ok you do that, but be prepared for the consequences."
As in response to the thread's question. No I think that man has the potential for both "good" or "evil" acts.
Justbyfaith
Originally posted by peejayd
* and, do infants and children have sins? let's hear from Christ Himself...
"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven ."
Matthew 19:14
* for Christ to say this, children are innocent, children have no sins... but what is the baptism for?
Boy peejayd, that's a big stretch.
Jesus was talking to those that were holding back children from coming to Him in faith? How does this verse say children have no sin?
"For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
Romans 3:20
The nice thing about the word "ALL" is there is little room for wiggle or re-interpretations.
Alliance
I think i have a new favorite duel team. JBF vs peejayd.
Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
Yes but where's the logic?
I only asked for the quotes of him.
The logic is that there are more verses in support of no original sin. Also, the verses that support original sin are weak in literal validity by comparison. The last verse quoted by Justbyfaith doesn't support original sin, only that all men sin.
"For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
Romans 3:20
Justbyfaith
Originally posted by Alliance
I think i have a new favorite duel team. JBF vs peejayd.
No problem with peejayd...he doesn't counter.
Alliance
Originally posted by Regret
I only asked for the quotes of him.
The logic is that there are more verses in support of no original sin. Also, the verses that support original sin are weak in literal validity by comparison. The last verse quoted by Justbyfaith doesn't support original sin, only that all men sin.
"For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
Romans 3:20
Sorry. I should have been specific. Peejayd doesn't use logic to support his quotes.
The Omega
Man, inherently evil??
What about woman?
Of course not. The world is not absolute, it's not EITHER/OR.
peejayd
Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Boy peejayd, that's a big stretch.
Jesus was talking to those that were holding back children from coming to Him in faith? How does this verse say children have no sin?
"For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
Romans 3:20
The nice thing about the word "ALL" is there is little room for wiggle or re-interpretations.
* let's see... so, what kind of people are those who could commit sin?
"For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good , and sinneth not."
Ecclesiastes 7:20
* what was my point? my point is that, a person who commits sin, is a person who is capable of committing a sin, a person who is capable of doing good or bad... so basically, saying that "... all men sinneth..." really excludes innocent infants and children...
* infants and children are innocent...
"For every one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness ; for he is a babe."
Hebrews 5:13
* so tell me, mr.Justbyfaith, what if an infant or a child died unbaptized, the "original sin" is still with it, and what? it will go straight to hell? boy, your "god" sure is a very cold-hearted "god"...
peejayd
Originally posted by Alliance
Sorry. I should have been specific. Peejayd doesn't use logic to support his quotes.
* for someone who doesn't count Bible as a basis of support, your comment is rather stupid...
Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Arcana
The idea of the passage as that man disobeyed God in attempt to be like God by gaining the knowledge of good or evil. It does not matter to me how it happened or if their was even a "Garden of Eden". What matters is the point behind the story.
And I say - why shouldn't we have tried to be like God? Apparently we are created in his image. How? We apparently have none of his power, apparently he didn't want us to have his knowledge, we have to obey. We can't look at him because he is "so great." Apparently he is perfect, but we, created in his image, are not. And the whole "God works in mysterious ways" that is why we can't understand him. We are said to be made in his image. It is kind of odd us little Gods don't have some sort of middle ground then and that we can't get even a wee bit of understanding.
It is like going to some guy who says "I have create a nation in the image of the US. Except it is made from soap."
Apparently we got created in the image of God, but got none of his feats or features. Nor the potential. Christians feel the need to reinforce the fact we are so much lesser the God. How can this be if we are in his image? Clearly we are made of soap.
Question - did God intend for this to happen?
Alliance
Originally posted by peejayd
* for someone who doesn't count Bible as a basis of support, your comment is rather stupid...
The point is, not everyone interprets sentances the same way. Sh*tting out quotes doesnt do anything. You never provide analysis to prove a point. Regardless of rather its "fact" or not.
Stealth Agent
Originally posted by peejayd
* so tell me, mr.Justbyfaith, what if an infant or a child died unbaptized, the "original sin" is still with it, and what? it will go straight to hell? boy, your "god" sure is a very cold-hearted "god"...
I was at catholic school and this is what sister maria told us. God will show mercy onto there souls. God will show mercy unto anyone who's had an unfair chance. Like children and infants who can't comprehend, or others born of another religion, who had religion forced onto them.
However if you directly choose not to follow Christ(like if the opportunity was presented), then God will not show mercy.
Originally posted by Arcana
Strawman.
You are attacking the symbolism and not the actual idea behind the symbol. The Bible is a book of symbolism (however far to many take it as literal)
Whether or not Adam simply represents the original group of homo sapieans (or whatever the hell they were called please forgive my spelling) or an actual man named Adam doesn't matter. It's the point of the story that matters.
The idea of the passage as that man disobeyed God in attempt to be like God by gaining the knowledge of good or evil. It does not matter to me how it happened or if their was even a "Garden of Eden". What matters is the point behind the story.
Man rebels against God and says "We wish to govern own lives." God says "ok you do that, but be prepared for the consequences."
As in response to the thread's question. No I think that man has the potential for both "good" or "evil" acts.
I believe part of it suppost to be taken realistically(by Christians). When i used to be an active catholic, everyday in church it was drilled into are head, we are unworthy because of original sin, plus our own sins.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Then there are deeper instincts - thou shall not kill is, in my opinion, more of something ingrained from non-sentient days. It can be overcome (a murderer, or a soldier, or in self defense.) But over all when a human is born they are neutral - not evil or really good. They will develop into such categories as life goes on.
I like that opinion on how some morals are ingrained, never though of it like that.
debbiejo
If god created man to be evil then god had to give that TO MAN. In saying that, god must also be evil, because man is part of what god is...
"Let us make man in our image".....
Mindship
Man is not inherently evil...he is inherently adaptive.
Alliance
and i might add...inherently prone to be ignorant.
Trickster
Originally posted by Arcana
The idea of the passage as that man disobeyed God in attempt to be like God by gaining the knowledge of good or evil. It does not matter to me how it happened or if their was even a "Garden of Eden". What matters is the point behind the story.
Man rebels against God and says "We wish to govern own lives." God says "ok you do that, but be prepared for the consequences."
I still don't understand how they can make a wrong choice before they know what's right and wrong. It seems like a Catch-22 to me.
"To find out what's right and wrong, you have to eat from the tree - but, if you eat from the tree, that's wrong, and I will punish all your children as sinners for it."
Alliance
The bible often states that the children are often as responsible for the sins of the father as the father himself.
This idea is not considered an "enlightened" idea in the context of modern law.
Trickster
I'm not commenting on the "sins of the father" idea - I'm simply saying I don't understand the actual original concept that they did something wrong without knowledge of what wrong was
Alliance
I guess thats why god decided to "write" the Bible.
Sorry i don't have a real answer.
Trickster
Don't worry, it wasn't directed at you anyway. I was kinda hoping for someone who does believe the Bible to give me a reply.
Regret
Originally posted by Trickster
I still don't understand how they can make a wrong choice before they know what's right and wrong. It seems like a Catch-22 to me.
"To find out what's right and wrong, you have to eat from the tree - but, if you eat from the tree, that's wrong, and I will punish all your children as sinners for it."
Originally posted by Trickster
Don't worry, it wasn't directed at you anyway. I was kinda hoping for someone who does believe the Bible to give me a reply.
In my religion, LDS (Mormon), we believe that Adam and Eve transgressed. We view a distinction between the term transgression and the term sin. Adam and Eve transgressed, they did not sin.
To transgress does not require an understanding, and is not necessarily deliberate. A sin requires knowledge of wrong. Was eating of the fruit a moral or religious law? I don't know, it might have been, it might not. Did Adam and Eve have religion? They could not have had morals yet.
Now this isn't a mainstream Christian view, this is the Mormon view.
peejayd
Originally posted by Alliance
The point is, not everyone interprets sentances the same way. Sh*tting out quotes doesnt do anything. You never provide analysis to prove a point. Regardless of rather its "fact" or not.
* you just missed it, admit you dropped the ball, pal... you just come out and "sh*t out" comments you think right...
* the fact is, we're talking about the "original sin", if it's true or not... i stated, according to the Bible - which most Christians, and even those who claims to be Christians, use as a basis of faith - the "original sin" is not Biblical...
* i think you're just pissed off, because when it comes to Bible, you can't refute... you just question the authenticity of the Bible, saying it's revised by a thousand times, blah blah blah...
Trickster
Thank you, Regret.
Peejayd, Alliance is right - you don't prove anything by just quoting the Bible. There are a lot of contradictions in there, and it's up to the reader to decide which takes precendence. Your opinion is not necessarily correct.
And putting smilies into your post doesn't make it look more authentic, nor somehow make what you're writing more truthful.
Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Trickster
And putting smilies into your post doesn't make it look more authentic, nor somehow make what you're writing more truthful.
Nor do the asterisks before each paragraph, the elipses in place of proper punctuation, and the complete absence of capitalization. I would recommend that he learn to use the quote function as well.
peejayd
* ... bah! have your way then... so, you don't have to gang up on me, or on how i write my post... have it your way...
Justbyfaith
Originally posted by peejayd
* ... bah! have your way then... so, you don't have to gang up on me, or on how i write my post... have it your way...
Let me suggest get BOLD in the faith.
Alliance
Originally posted by peejayd
* you just missed it, admit you dropped the ball, pal... you just come out and "sh*t out" comments you think right...
* the fact is, we're talking about the "original sin", if it's true or not... i stated, according to the Bible - which most Christians, and even those who claims to be Christians, use as a basis of faith - the "original sin" is not Biblical...
* i think you're just pissed off, because when it comes to Bible, you can't refute... you just question the authenticity of the Bible, saying it's revised by a thousand times, blah blah blah...
Perhaps in the original sin instance my criticism was not as grounded, but my point still stands. Cite the Bible all you want, but don't expect us to always interpret your passages the same way.
I can't refute what you say, becuase you rarely say anything. and arguing with a book is only entertainting for so long....it rarely argues back
peejayd
* the problem is, where did the belief of "original sin" came from? yes, it came from the Bible blatantly misinterpreted... so i go out here, and "sh*t out" verses to prove their belief wrong... if you don't care much about the Bible, i don't have anything to do with you, pal... i just giving my side of the story in which you always claim to be illogical... bah!
Alliance
I simplt siad that then you should state your interpretation.
You are clearly not getting my point. The bible is onyl important to Christians and only answering to CHirsitans is fairly narrow view on this forum. I have made my position on the use of bible quotes cleary repeatedly...you have read where I stand, but apparently refuse to accept my position.
peejayd
* i know where you're position is, the fact is, what's your point of arguing something in the Biblical aspect? the argument of the belief of the "original sin" lies within the boundaries of those who believe in the Bible because the belief clearly came from the Bible, only misinterpreted... i can't believe you're still posting here... am i right?
Alliance
Originally posted by Alliance
Perhaps in the original sin instance my criticism was not as grounded, but my point still stands.
Mindship
Man: inherently self-abusive.
Mindship
It's the conclusion I'm coming to reading many of these threads.
peejayd
* man today, is self-abusive... but not inherently... IMO...
Alliance
Man has always been self-abusive. It has its plus sides though.
wowo
Adam did bring sin into the world, he disobeyed God. To disobey God is to sin. An Imperfect being cannot give birth to a perfect being.
Man brought sin into the world with 1 act, and Christ redeemed us with 1 act
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by wowo
Adam did bring sin into the world, he disobeyed God. To disobey God is to sin. An Imperfect being cannot give birth to a perfect being.
Man brought sin into the world with 1 act, and Christ redeemed us with 1 act
But Adam is only a myth, and was never a real person.
Wild Shadow
adam was once the end all be all if the universe after he acquired infinity might
Symmetric Chaos
Yes, definitely.
Digi
Man, inherently awesome?
313
Wild Shadow
its the women that ruined it all.. i can say that from personal experience... lying cheating b%&^$ w^&%*& c^%$
Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.
Copyright 1999-2024 KillerMovies.