David,
First off... Bart did not write that response, it was me... Second, it looks like this response from you (below) wasn't written by you either. You just copied and pasted it from wikipedia...
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
Nonetheless, let's address some of the issues here.
David Blacklock wrote:Answer: The way I understand it, the idea of original sin was first developed in second-century Irenaeus' struggle against Gnosticism, but first established as one of the tenets of Christianity in the 5th century A.D., under the influence of Augustine, by the Roman Catholic church. It is at best, only a theory! (heh, heh, we've heard that before). The Augustinian theory declares that since all of mankind is descended from Adam, then on that basis the morality of Adam was transferred to his descendants, and therefore, all of mankind is intrinsically corrupt.
Actually the understanding of the original sin (or spiritual separation from God) was
popularized by Augustine, but the core beliefs came directly from the Bible as I will explain..
David Blacklock wrote:Many Christians, like you, believe this theory to be a Bible doctrine. I suggest the doctrine has scanty Biblical support. They reason that, since theologians and preachers teach this doctrine, then it must be true. But where, in the Bible, is it written that , "All men are guilty and condemnable for the nature with which they are born"?
Not guilty, but sinful in many places... Starting with the Old Testament.
Genesis 8:21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil
from childhood.
Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful
from the time my mother conceived me.
Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged
from the womb: they go astray
as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
Ecclesiastes 7:20 There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.
Proverbs 20:9 Who can say, "I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin"?
And the New Testament...
Romans 5:12-19 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
1 Corinthians 15:21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
David Blacklock wrote:The doctrine of original sin has received considerable scrutiny from contemporary Christians. The chief dispute centres over the emotional argument of whether an apparently innocent baby can be deemed subject to sin and death - distinctions between personal sin (i.e. freely willed, conscious and understood) and original sin (not the result of free will). Effectively, the Augustinian teaching says that even though the baby has not made any conscious choice, it is nevertheless personally affected by—and subject to—sin, and that God's grace is essential to give hope and salvation. Augustine believed that the human race, without God's help, was depraved - a view that some scholars believe to be (rather than an accurate edict from God) a negative view of human nature.
So this source from wikipedia is saying that the original sin (that man created by himself by the way), puts a negative spin on human nature... What a revolting thought.. Almost like a guilt trip huh? Well sorry to ruin the party I guess... It's interesting in our culture that anything so called "negative" or involves any personal inventory is frowned upon these days. In fact I've seen some people extremely frightened by taking any personal inventory of their motives... Almost like we as humans can do no wrong... If someone wants to rob someone else, then those who confront him are now considered the adversaries for telling him that he is wrong. Such a sad world we live in... Original sin, puts every human on the same playing level. No one is above it all. We all sin, it's in our very nature.. And it is humbling to know this. Even a child could understand this.. Well hopefully anyways...
We have our good points and our bad ones. We have the choice to either focus on the one or the other....
David Blacklock wrote:Original sin, from the Augustinian perspective, is not a free and individual choice by a baby; but rather the effect of the sum total of "world sin", taught analogously through the story of the sin of Adam and Eve. The Augustinian remedy for original sin is baptism; the ritual washing away of the unchosen but inevitable condition of birth sin; and a vigorous declaration by Christians that sin shall not prevail, but that God's grace can overpower it with our free cooperation.
Some individuals challenge the entire doctrine of original sin as unbiblical, reasoning that the children should not be punished for the sins of the fathers, documenting this belief with Ezekiel 18:20.
David you are going to have to stop reading from these wikipedia sources and start reading the Bible for yourself...
In the New Testamant, Individuals are not judged for Adam's sins, but for their own personal sins
Revelation 20:11-15. On top of that original sin has been cured by baptism for people in both the Old and New Testaments... God always gives us an outlet. So basically it no longer exists (spiritually), even though we can still be drawn to sin.
David Blacklock wrote:Judaism rejects the concept of the original sin altogether and stresses free will and men's responsibility of their actions rather than religious obedience or faith.
Well then why would anyone want to stress the responsibility of their actions if they were perfect? Are they claiming they have no sin then? I don't think so...
How could the Jews understand the Old Testament without the light of the New Testament? And how could the New Testament be understood without the light of the Old Testament? They both need to breath together to get the full picture.. According to the Bible, it was Christ that fully exposed the truth of our current predicament.
John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and TRUTH came through Jesus Christ.
The New Testament says the same too...
2 Cor 13:5-6
David Blacklock wrote:Why, they ask, would God, who is, by dogma, universal unconditional Love, create sentient and sapient beings, then intentionally let them become corrupt—and then punish them from generation to generation with eternal torture for simply just being born in the world and for nothing else—and judge people not on their actions but by their faith or its lack—and then by whim save the beings from nothing else but from his very own wrath.
God didn't intentionally let people become corrupt. He warned them repeatedly not to take that which was forbidden.. I don't have time to go into this, but God did not invent robots.. I would invite you to read this article on predestination again.
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/p ... ation.html
David Blacklock wrote:Christian churches that deny original sin have differing explanations for the ancient Christian practice of conferring on infants what the Nicene Creed calls the "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". Several denominations (following anabaptist traditions) deny offering infant baptism altogether and insist that only persons who have reached the "age of accountability" should be baptized.
There are wide-ranging disagreements among Christian groups as to the exact understanding of the doctrine about a state of sinfulness or absence of holiness affecting all human beings, even children, with some Christian groups denying it altogether.
Everyone is free to choose their own interpretation of the Bible. But the verses about original sin from the Bible (shown above) will either have to be permitted or omitted... A risk they will have to take themselves...
David Blacklock wrote:Then, Bart, back to your definition of sin, certainly people don't act in good faith. One of my favorite quotes, by Robert Wright says, "...humans are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their constitutional ignorance of the misuse."
No... That is NOT true... People CAN act in good faith. It's just that they or we don't act in good faith all the time. Do you know anyone that acts in good faith all the time?? If so I would like to meet this person... We all have our good points and our bad ones. Let's get real...
David Blacklock wrote:All the doctrinal descriptions of sin have secular parallels in the writings of psychology, especially evolutionary psychology. DB
Well that's good.. At least we are admitting now that it may have some validity in the secular fields...