1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52615
    27 Jul '15 10:531 edit
    Original sin was cleverly designed by men to trap those with weak minds so as to always have a whip to hang over the heads of the duped.

    An evil concept by any standard, it should never have been the basis for ANY religion.

    First, make up a creation tale, like there was only A&E, then have one of them fall from grace and thereafter the entire human race is born into sin.

    An outrageously evil plot, one of the most disgusting concepts ever to have hit the religious trail. This has to top the list of evil in the bible, up there with 'I am a jealous god' which is a clear message from those who invented this god to make it more palatable to the population the elders were set to control.
  2. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    27 Jul '15 11:393 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Original sin was cleverly designed by men to trap those with weak minds so as to always have a whip to hang over the heads of the duped.

    An evil concept by any standard, it should never have been the basis for ANY religion.

    First, make up a creation tale, like there was only A&E, then have one of them fall from grace and thereafter the entire human ra ...[text shortened]... ho invented this god to make it more palatable to the population the elders were set to control.
    You might find this article by a Rabbi regarding "original sin" interesting:
    http://outreachjudaism.org/original-sin/

    It's rather lengthy, but well worth reading in its entirety. Following are some excerpts:
    In fact, missionaries insist that as a result of the fall in the Garden of Eden, man’s unquenchable desire for sin is virtually ungovernable. In Christian terms, man is not inclined toward sin but more accurately is a slave to sin. As a result, the Church concludes, short of converting to Christianity, humanity can do nothing to save itself from hell.

    Bear in mind, there is good reason for the Church’s uncompromising stand on this cherished doctrine. The founders of Christianity understood that if man, through his devotion and obedience to God, can save himself from eternal damnation, the Church would very little to offer their parishioners.
    Moreover, if righteousness can be achieved through submission to the commandments outlined in the Torah, what possible benefit could Jesus’ death provide for mankind? Such selfprobing thoughts, however, were unimaginable to those who shaped Christian theology.


    ...How could the authors of the New Testament reasonably insist that man’s dire condition was hopeless if the Torah unambiguously declared that man possessed an extraordinary ability to remain faithful to God? How could the Church fathers possibly contend that the mitzvoth in the Torah couldn’t save the Jewish people when the Creator proclaimed otherwise? How could missionaries conceivably maintain that the commandments of the Torah are too difficult when the Torah declares that they are “not far off,” “not too hard,” and “you may do it”?

    This staggering problem did not escape the attention of Paul. Bear in mind, the author of Romans and Galatians constructed his most consequential doctrines on the premise that man is utterly depraved, and therefore incapable of saving himself through his own obedience to God. In chapter after chapter, he directs his largely gentile audiences toward the cross and away from Sinai, as he repeatedly insists that man is utterly lost without Jesus.

    Yet, how could Paul harmonize this wayward theology with the Jewish Scriptures in which his teachings were not only unknown, but thoroughly condemned? Even with the nimble skills that Paul possessed, welding together the Church’s young doctrine of original sin with diametrically opposed teachings of the Jewish Scriptures would not be a simple task.

    Employing unparalleled literary manipulation, however, Paul manages to conceal this vexing theological problem with a swipe of his well-worn eraser. In fact, Paul’s innovative approach to biblical tampering was so stunning that it would set the standard of scriptural revisionism for future New Testament authors.

  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52615
    27 Jul '15 12:37
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    You might find this article by a Rabbi regarding "original sin" interesting:
    http://outreachjudaism.org/original-sin/

    It's rather lengthy, but well worth reading in its entirety. Following are some excerpts:
    In fact, missionaries insist that as a result of the fall in the Garden of Eden, man’s unquenchable desire for sin is virtually ungoverna ...[text shortened]... ould set the standard of scriptural revisionism for future New Testament authors.
    [/b]
    Which is why I say Christianity is mis-named. It should be called paulinity or Paulism. But the 'born into sin' is still clearly an evil invention. Allowing Rabbi's to condemn the entire human race in one swell foop, but hey, we can save you, trust us.
  4. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8572
    27 Jul '15 13:104 edits
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    ThinkOfOne

    You seem to be leaning on Orthodox Jewish commentaries these days a lot. Are you thinking of becoming an Orthodox Jew ?

    Or do you figure that the best defenses against the New Testament Gospel would be found in Judaism since the first century. That's when Judaism really began an effort to structure itself against the belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

    Above you quoted:

    ...How could the authors of the New Testament reasonably insist that man’s dire condition was hopeless if the Torah unambiguously declared that man possessed an extraordinary ability to remain faithful to God?


    This is well before the New Testament. Why did David who loved the law of God say this ?

    "And do not enter into judgment with Your servant, For no man living is righteous in Your sight." (Psa, 143:2)


    Can blame that on Paul, can you ?

    And the above corresponds to what the oldest book in the Hebrew Bible Job says.

    "I do indeed know that it is so. But how can a man be righteous before God?" (Job 9:2)


    You can't blame that utterance on the "innovation" of the Apostle Paul. Again in Job:

    "How then can man be righteous with God? And how can one born of a woman be pure ? " (Job 25:4)


    We can't blame that on the "innovation" of Paul.
    So I think your good Rabbi there needs some closer examination.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52615
    27 Jul '15 14:29
    Originally posted by sonship
    ThinkOfOne

    You seem to be leaning on Orthodox Jewish commentaries these days a lot. Are you thinking of becoming an Orthodox Jew ?

    Or do you figure that the best defenses against the New Testament Gospel would be found in Judaism since the first century. That's when Judaism really began an effort to structure itself against the belief in Jesus as ...[text shortened]... t on the "innovation" of Paul.
    So I think your good Rabbi there needs some closer examination.
    Born into sin is STILL evil, no matter how you slice it.
  6. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8572
    27 Jul '15 16:043 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Born into sin is STILL evil, no matter how you slice it.
    There is a Savior.
    There is salvation.
    There is forgiveness.
    There is power to overcome in the grace of Christ.
    There is one Man's obedience that can constitute millions as righteous.

    There is atonement.
    There is redemption.
    There is reconcilation.
    There is freedom from both the guilt of sin and from the power of sin.

    And no matter how you cut it you're just coming up with excuses to remain in the life of sin which you prefer rather than God as heavenly Father and Jesus as Lord and Savior.

    You're just putting a mask of rational excuses upon your love for the life in sin. There's a better way.
  7. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8572
    27 Jul '15 16:213 edits
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    Yet, how could Paul harmonize this wayward theology with the Jewish Scriptures in which his teachings were not only unknown, but thoroughly condemned?
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I await THinkOfOne's reply to the passages in the Psalms and in Job proving the OT Hebrew lovers of God and lovers of the law of God recognized the problem that nevertheless, they needed justification out from another source than themselves.


    Even with the nimble skills that Paul possessed, welding together the Church’s young doctrine of original sin with diametrically opposed teachings of the Jewish Scriptures would not be a simple task.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I don't know about "nimble skills" but the writer of Ecclesiastes said that though God created man upright, man sought out many crooked schemes.

    "See, this alone have I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes." (Ecc. 7:29)


    We have to go back to the Old Testament and see WHY the man originally created "upright" got damaged to go off and seek many schemes - deceit.

    And it was not Paul but the prophet Jeremiah, speaking forth for God, who said the heart of man is desperately wicked. Only God can know it.

    " The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is incurable; Who can know it ?" (Jeremiah 17:9)


    So man needs a deep inward liberation. Man needs a new life implanted into the fallen life inherited from Adam when mankind began to seek out many schemes.

    We thank God for the Apostle Paul's revelation. And we thank God that in the Old Testament God PROMISED a new covenant in which He would dispense His life into our inward parts. (Jeremiah 31:31-34) . First it was extended to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Then it was extended to the Gentiles by which the "incurable" heart may be cured by God.

    It was also the Law which said that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Christ, the son of God came to institute this new covenant foretold not by Paul but by Jeremiah. .
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52615
    27 Jul '15 16:45
    Originally posted by sonship
    There is a Savior.
    There is salvation.
    There is forgiveness.
    There is power to overcome in the grace of Christ.
    There is one Man's obedience that can constitute millions as [b]righteous
    .

    There is atonement.
    There is redemption.
    There is reconcilation.
    There is freedom from both the guilt of sin and from the power of sin.

    And no m ...[text shortened]... st putting a mask of rational excuses upon your love for the life in sin. There's a better way.[/b]
    I need no excuses because your religion, all three Abrahamic religions are 100% man made specifically for the purpose of controlling the population with such gimmicks as original sin, if you buy into that you are hooked. No god needed.
  9. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    27 Jul '15 16:50
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    "original sin'', an inherently evil concept.
    Nice subtle wordplay.
  10. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8572
    27 Jul '15 17:16
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I need no excuses because your religion, all three Abrahamic religions are 100% man made specifically for the purpose of controlling the population with such gimmicks as original sin, if you buy into that you are hooked. No god needed.
    I need no excuses because your religion, all three Abrahamic religions are 100% man made specifically for the purpose of controlling the population with such gimmicks as original sin, if you buy into that you are hooked. No god needed.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The gentleman protests too much.

    But for the record the term "Original Sin" I never use myself.

    If I was forced to I would insist that we have to ALSO then speak of "Original Righteousness". For the what the disobedience of Adam did to us, the obedience of the last Adam , Christ, saves us.

    You are paranoid about people wanting to control your life.
    You are drunk with conspiracy theories which go way overboard.

    No doubt the Gospels themselves warn us of religious manipulation. But you want to stretch the matter ad infinitum in fear that your anarchy will be checked in ANY regard.

    You don't have to fear that a Christian like me is trying to get into your wallot or control you. All you have to do is wait and see what the crop of your own sowing will eventually grow up to be.

    You'll have no one to blame for the harvest of your own sowing.
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52615
    28 Jul '15 10:44
    Originally posted by sonship
    [b] I need no excuses because your religion, all three Abrahamic religions are 100% man made specifically for the purpose of controlling the population with such gimmicks as original sin, if you buy into that you are hooked. No god needed.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The gentleman protests too mu ...[text shortened]... l eventually grow up to be.

    You'll have no one to blame for the harvest of your own sowing.[/b]
    I am talking about the original people who made up these religions. Now it is just big business. VERY big business. Look at Catholics. Look at Mormons, Look at JW's, look at the tent revivals where the 'preachers' drive Corvettes and have really nice yachts.
  12. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8572
    28 Jul '15 11:392 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I am talking about the original people who made up these religions. Now it is just big business. VERY big business. Look at Catholics. Look at Mormons, Look at JW's, look at the tent revivals where the 'preachers' drive Corvettes and have really nice yachts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I like to look at Christ, first and foremost.
    I like to persuade people to look away to Christ.

    I like to make mostly positive dialogue which looks at Jesus and away from all the other things. If this thread is just another dime a dozen toilet gazing exercise, like nine out of ten threads, I'll just move along.

    I'd like to find some threads that simply and positively look away to Christ.
  13. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    28 Jul '15 17:231 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Which is why I say Christianity is mis-named. It should be called paulinity or Paulism. But the 'born into sin' is still clearly an evil invention. Allowing Rabbi's to condemn the entire human race in one swell foop, but hey, we can save you, trust us.
    Allowing Rabbi's to condemn the entire human race in one swell foop, but hey, we can save you, trust us.

    You lost me here. The rabbi was clearly speaking in the strongest terms against the concept of "original sin", so I don't understand when you speak of " rabbis condemn[ing] the entire human race".
  14. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    28 Jul '15 17:383 edits
    Originally posted by sonship
    ThinkOfOne

    You seem to be leaning on Orthodox Jewish commentaries these days a lot. Are you thinking of becoming an Orthodox Jew ?

    Or do you figure that the best defenses against the New Testament Gospel would be found in Judaism since the first century. That's when Judaism really began an effort to structure itself against the belief in Jesus as ...[text shortened]... t on the "innovation" of Paul.
    So I think your good Rabbi there needs some closer examination.
    Do you really have that much trouble understanding the written word? It's really simple. Here, I'll lay it out for you.

    This is what the rabbi said:
    How could the authors of the New Testament reasonably insist that man’s dire condition was hopeless if the Torah unambiguously declared that man possessed an extraordinary ability to remain faithful to God?


    The rabbi backed it up with the following:
    if you will hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law; if you turn unto the Lord thy God with all your heart and with all your soul; for this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you neither is it too far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, and make us hear it, that we may do it?” Neither is it beyond the sea that you should say: “Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it that we may do it?” The word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

    (Deuteronomy 30:10-14)


    The rabbi then restated the point:
    How could the authors of the New Testament reasonably insist that man’s dire condition was hopeless if the Torah unambiguously declared that man possessed an extraordinary ability to remain faithful to God? How could the Church fathers possibly contend that the mitzvoth in the Torah couldn’t save the Jewish people when the Creator proclaimed otherwise? How could missionaries conceivably maintain that the commandments of the Torah are too difficult when the Torah declares that they are “not far off,” “not too hard,” and “you may do it”?


    So the Torah "unambiguously declared that man possessed an extraordinary ability to remain faithful to God" just as the rabbi contended.

    Taking verses out of context and citing them does nothing to refute what the rabbi said.

    Why don't you actually address what the rabbi said instead of continuing the dubious practice of taking verses out of context to prop up your position?

    As a side note, the rabbi goes on to show how Paul underhandedly omits "you may do it" when he quotes a portion of Deuteronomy 30:14. Perhaps this is where the dubious practice of taking scripture out of context started and you just follow his lead?
  15. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    28 Jul '15 22:31
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Original sin was cleverly designed by men to trap those with weak minds so as to always have a whip to hang over the heads of the duped.

    An evil concept by any standard, it should never have been the basis for ANY religion.

    First, make up a creation tale, like there was only A&E, then have one of them fall from grace and thereafter the entire human ra ...[text shortened]... ho invented this god to make it more palatable to the population the elders were set to control.
    Your statement is nonsensical and hardly even addresses the idea of original sin and is nothing more than a thinly disguised rant against religion in general.

    Parents pass on their characteristics to their offspring and often times children are born into unfavourable circumstances because of the actions of their parents, for example children born with HIV or heroin addiction. Adam and Eve consciously and willingly sought complete moral independence from God and suffered the consequences despite being warned. As a consequence sin and imperfection and thus death were passed on to their offspring. This evil was brought not by God but by their own action.

    your one dimensional view of jealous is evident by your rather glaring lack of Biblical knowledge for in scripture it can have both positive and negative connotations.
Back to Top