And God said, Let there be light: and there was light

The concept of original sin is contradictory.

for clarity, please state specifically what you believe "original sin" to be and what you find contradictory about it. Please be through and specific.

for the record - when i said "complex concept" I was referring to my explanation of the situation, not to the doctrine itself. But i'll refrain from further comment until you set the terms.

Original sin is the doctrine that humanity generally is in a "fallen" state, that we are each guilty of some transgression before we even have had our first thought, due either to actions taken by one of our ancestors or because such a state is an aspect of our nature.

In the former case, collective punishment is unjust. In the latter, creating a being that is imperfect and then blaming it for its imperfection is also unjust. Such injustice is incompatible with (contradicts) the existence of a perfect creator.

Those two statements are not equivalent, by any means. The first one is not the doctrine of original sin. It is the doctrine of the universality of sin, which is not the same thing. Original sin teaches that we are guilty because of Adam's sin, and we need to be redeemed from that guilt. That doctrine is not what the Bible teaches and is indeed abominable and contradictory. But the universality of sin is both Biblical and observable.

As i suspected.

I gave you a perfectly rational and non-contradictory explanation for how humanity could be "in a fallen state"

You might very well find that circumstance "unjust" (I'd argue it's no more unjust than a preschooler getting cancer) but that doesn't make it contradictory.

The former case, should it be what anyone actually believes, is a false doctrine (insofar as "true doctrine" is defined by the Bible) - there is no derivative "punishment" for someone else's sin.

the verse that speaks of "visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children" is a description of practical consequences of sin. For a secular example, if one generation pollutes the environment of a region, subsequent generations will pay the price for the "sins" of their fathers.

In the latter case, the doctrine of free will accounts for the potential for error leading to an endemic problem. If the Perfect Creator wished, as a goal of his creative effort, to create a being which was distinguished by free will, then it doesn't contradict that being's perfect-ness that the creation - exercising that free will - chose in error.

You presume upon the Creator unstated and perhaps non-existent goals when you presume that the creation must remain perfect.

That the Creator does not act as you would have acted does not undermine the validity of his choices.

I dispute that sin is observable or universal. That requires acceptance of the concept itself.

I don't recall that, other than the waving the concept away as too complex for our tiny minds to comprehend. Feel free to remind me.

Injustices (including the preschooler with cancer, since you mention it) are contradictory when given effect by a supposedly perfect being.

Not equivalent. Original sin being a "practical consequence" does not negate God being the agent of that consequence. There's no logical reason why the sin of Adam should consequently be carried by anyone but he, other than God deciding that it should be so.

Original sin is not contingent on free-will, existing as it does prior to any choice being made. This is the entire problem.

That he is claimed to act in ways contradictory to his supposed nature does undermine the case for his existence.

Did you read the rest of that post? The parts where he explained that it's bullshit? No, skipped that part didn't you?

Yo Dan - you might want to give that post another look.

That sin is the spiritual equivalent of a genetic disease. Adam's act (metaphorically but we're assuming the question here) was one of infection. All who come after are affected by the plague even though no action of their own caused the infection.

I explained to you that the perfect being didn't "give effect to either. Unless you are arguing that his failure to wave it out of existence is unjust. That would provoke a tangent into what his reasons might e for not doing so and whether those reasons are just.

Why do you (and Dan) continue to target a doctrine that both Async and I have told you is not a Biblical doctrine. Why should I defend a concept I object to as much as you do?

"Original sin" is a non-issue in this thread as no one defends the concept. The universality of sin, as Async describes it, is the issue.

When you say "there is no logical reason" you cannot be making a factually true statement because a logical conclusion demands access to all the data, which neither of us have.

I offered at least one rationally plausible explanation for how it could be so without God's direct assertive action. I'm sure there might well be many others. Absent all the data, you cannot argue the reason is illogical. You can only comment on how plausable you find the potential rationals offered.

This is what I mean when I say that you bail on a concept that is more complex than you want to deal with. Is it necessary for you to know everything there is to know about string theory (for instance) in order to find the descriptions of it plausible? Or do you assert there is "no logical reason" for it to be true?

Whaaat?

Which claim is this?

you probably should ask that in a place where ANYONE who might respond actually BELIEVES it.

Ya know?

The Catholic Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses, among others. Both of them teach that we are all condemned for Adam's sin, and that Jesus died to pay the price for Adam's sin, thus liberating us from that (if we are baptized). Since, in their doctrines, Christ's death and resurrection redeems us from the punishment for Adam's sin, his death does not pay the price for our own personal sin. We have to pay the price for that ourselves. According to Catholic doctrine, we do it by suffering in purgatory for a long time, before being admitted to heaven, while according to the Jehovah's Witnesses we do it by our own physical death.

Don't ask me to defend this doctrine. I don't believe it in any way, so I'm not about to defend it. As I said, it is both contradictory and abominable. What the Bible teaches is that Jesus pays the price to deliver us from our own sin, if we want to be. According to the Bible, we are not born in a state of guilt, but in a state of independence from God.

Because my ancestors and their fellow colonists declared themselves independent from England 235 years ago this coming July, I was born independent from England and, if I want to be English, have to make that choice myself. In the same way, because Adam and Eve declared themselves independent from God, I was born independent from God and, if I want to be part of God's kingdom, have to make that choice myself.

But there is no guilt associated with my state. My guilt comes from when I do bad things because, being independent of God, I do not live according to the principle of perfect love for others at all times. That is why I said that, while original sin is an abominable doctrine, the universality of sin is actually observable. It doesn't take a genius or a divine revelation to see that no one always puts the well-being of others before his or her own well-being. Most people, apparently, don't even want to and, since God himself gives us the right to be independent of him, he lets us live that way if that is our choice.

I'm going to respond to what I think are the important points.

If it is genetic, it is so because God decided that should be the case. Trying to exclude God from the occurrence is useless - he makes the rules.

I do not need "all of the data" to see that the data that does exist makes your conclusions illogical. If you're falling back on the "too complicated for us" hand-waving, I consider that a concession. That can be claimed about anything at all.

For my part, notwithstanding that I do not accept the existence of a single coherent "biblical" view, seeing as you don't believe in original sin I'll back down on some other points. Even though "universality of sin" seems to me to be just a weaker version of the same doctrine, I'm too used to dealing with Catholics, it seems.

Quite understandable, for someone from Ireland. But I have noticed the same tendency among a number of Americans. Many people (Christians and non-Christians) tend to assume that "Christianity" is a much more unified belief structure than it actually is. They do the same thing with Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and so on, not realizing that all the major "religions" are in fact families of religions by now. Some of the subsets recognize other subsets as valid variations, some think they are the "one true faith," but all have their distinguishing caracteristics. (The situation is in fact very similar to what one finds in major political parties, for example.)

That he died to deliver us from our own sin (as I said in my post).

The whole point of salvation in the Bible is to come to God. But since God operates in perfect love, and we don't, we can't. If God accepted us, he would be compromising himself by tolerating selfishness. Christ's death is the solution to that dilemma: the price of sin is paid, the victory of perfect love over the selfishness of sin is demonstrated, and the power of sin (death) is broken.

That means that if we want it, we can be delivered from sin because of Christ's death, by a process that begins the moment we choose to be his followers, continues throughout our lives, and is perfected when we enter into eternity and into his presence. The end result of salvation is thus to change our mentality so that we can live in perfect love, as God's law prescribes.

And that's why salvation is freely offered to everyone, but does not save everyone. Not that God's power to save is limited (he has unlimited power), but that he respects the free choice of those who don't want his law of perfect love governing them. Those who prefer selfishness are absolutely free to continue in it but, as a consequence that is innately bound up with respecting that choice, will never be incorporated into God's reign of perfect love.

In simple terms, the one who honestly says to God: "Deliver us from evil" will find that he is both capable of and willing to doing so, but the one who doesn't want that is not forced to accept it.

Do you actually bother reading anything anyone posts anymore?

Well, it's a pointless point, since you could apply it to Fairies, talking animals with clothes, or your food coming to life to sing and dance every time you close the fridge door.


That you can make up a little story in your head for why "God is hiding", doesn't mean much unless you can prove it's true.

This is the trouble I came up against with Vlad, simply speaking well doesn't make a point logical or coherent.

You'd think you'd learn that one from all the bullshit politicians you're against.

Apparently not.

And that seems rational and just to you, because...?

In relation to what?

He's a stupid asshole.

Why should it be a question of "need"? Did I marry my wife because I "need" her? Do I post on Wordforge because I "need" to? Sometimes, one does things because one chooses to do it that way. Or does God need your permission to do things the way he deems wise? Are you really sure that you know better than he does what is the best way of doing things? Where did you get such transcendent knowledge?

He leaves you free to do what you want, but that seems more than you are willing to do where he is concerned.

He can't. Which is why he doesn't.

Humans determine that God "can't" do something when God says he can't do it. And God has said very clearly that he cannot deny himself. Compromising his holiness would deny himself.

As for understanding the word "can't," it's not that complicated. It means that it is totally foreign to his nature, so that it would never even cross his mind to do it.

^ Yes, yes and yes.