Original Sin, fact or fable.

[Embankment]

Sin is a conscious act performed by individuals that will contravene mans knowledge of right and wrong it is voluntary not inbred as some want us to believe, babies cry for a multitude of reasons not to exercise their sin nature.

I don’t believe that is what the Bible teaches. The is also involuntary sin that is in our nature and lineage. It is passed down from Adam and Eve.
Besides, if all sin we’re voluntary we could avoid it completely by our on willpower. We can’t.
That is why Jesus died on the cross.

 

[Churinga]

I don’t believe that is what the Bible teaches. The is also involuntary sin that is in our nature and lineage. It is passed down from Adam and Eve.
Besides, if all sin we’re voluntary we could avoid it completely by our on willpower. We can’t.
That is why Jesus died on the cross.

Did you read the entire post including the link?

 

[Lillywolf]

The entire doctrine of Original Sin is succinctly summed up in the following statement excerpted from an article entitled The Myth of Original Sin by Tom Overstreet..

• Most Christians who profess to believe in the doctrine of original sin are ignorant of exactly what its teachings really are. They are ignorant of the fact that the doctrine has not always existed. They are ignorant of the fact that it evolved, that it had its roots in a heathen philosophy, and that it was made a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church in the 5th century A.D. They are ignorant of the fact that it is only a theory, and that there is really not one but several differing theories that have evolved and come down to us in the church. They are also ignorant of the fact that the Bible passages used as proof-texts for this doctrine have been taken out of context and tortured into teaching a doctrine that is completely foreign to the Bible. Finally, they are ignorant of the fact that the doctrine of original sin is an evil doctrine that corrupts Christian practice, blackens the character of God, excuses sin in the sinner, contradicts the Bible, makes Jesus a sinner, harms the cause of Christ, and stumbles professing Christians into hell. And it is this ignorance of Christians concerning these facts that helps to protect and perpetuate the doctrine of original sin. [1]

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/original_sin_fact_or_fable.html

Original sin does cause one to question its origin in faith and practice when there are scriptures that tell us the sins of the father do not pass unto the (human) son.
Deuteronomy 24:16
“Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin."
How then could the sin of the father of all humanity, as we're told the Adamu is, carry forth to all of humanity?

The RCC has manifest a great deal of dogma that carries over even after the Reformation and into many a Protestant (Protest-ant) believer. In the RCC Catechism there are 18 references to their attention to Original Sin:

After the excerpts below the list continues @ The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity......

The full Catechism this is copied and pasted from is LINKED HERE

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
CHAPTER ONE
I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER
ARTICLE I
"I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH"
Paragraph 7. The Fall


Original sin - an essential truth of the faith
388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story's ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.261 We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to "convict the world concerning sin",262 by revealing him who is its Redeemer.
389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.
How to read the account of the fall
390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

[...]​

III. ORIGINAL SIN
Freedom put to the test
396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
Man's first sin
397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.
398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".279
399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281
400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul's spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay".284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground",285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286
401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain's murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ's atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church's Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man's history:

What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288

The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity......

 

[Lillywolf]

That is simply nonsense.

The reason that the Gospel needs to be preached to every creature is because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

And the reason that sin and death are the curse of the human race is because of Adam. It is all there is the Bible.

Did you read the post and the link in the OP?

 

[Lillywolf]

Maybe some excerpts of the OP linked article entitled, Original Sin and Epigenetics What exactly was it that Adam passed down to his descendants ? Carol Brooks, will help bring to peoples attention what the OP is about.
Exerpted in parts to make it somewhat easier to read and manage ones way to an informed opinion on the article content. It is an extensive information link in the OP.


Original Sin.. The Original Miscarriage of Justice
The term "Original Sin", which does not exist in the Bible or Jewish writings, is used in two senses ... a) Adam's sin of disobedience (commonly called The Fall) in eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and b) The moral corruption that is supposedly passed down from Adam to his descendants which causes every member of the human race to be born guilty of sin long before they commit one for themselves.

However there is certainly no consensus of opinion on what effects the sin of Adam had on our nature and/or standing before God. The three major views on "Original Sin" are

• a) Adam's sin had no effect upon his descendants other than providing a really bad example for the rest of humankind to follow.
  b) Adam's sin has resulted in his descendants inheriting a propensity or predisposition to sin. This tendency is often referred to as a "sin nature."
  c) Adam's sin has resulted in his descendants not only having a "sin nature", but inheriting the very sin of Adam and Eve and therefore condemned to hell because of it. In other words.. we all sinned when Adam sinned or, as they like to put it, we all sinned "in Adam".

Many Christians today, including most Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Catholics unblushingly subscribe to the third listed view, maintaining that the sin of Adam was transferred to all future generations, tainting even the unborn. Since infants carry the stain and guilt of the first sin ever committed, they have to be baptized to remove this sin and should they die before baptism they are unsanctified and forever excluded from heaven. This of course has led to the corollary doctrine and practice of Infant Baptism, which ignores the fact that there is not a single Bible verse that commands or even implies infant baptism. To say nothing of the danger that multitudes of people baptized as infants could grow up thinking they are saved and on their way to Heaven, even though they have never been born again through personal faith in Christ. [See Baptism and The New Birth]

Proponents often refer to this doctrine as "hard to understand". Is it any wonder that not only would someone find this hard to understand, but that a logical and fair minded human being would balk at the thought that they are condemned for a crime that they themselves did not commit. That a person’s sin is an affliction over which he has absolutely no control whatsoever.

Guilt and innocence are the warp and weft of the fabric of our justice system. Man’s fundamental concept of justice is that a person cannot be condemned and punished except for intentional, reckless or negligent wrong doing. Does it not speak volumes that we consider it a "miscarriage of justice" when an innocent person is sentenced for an illegal act he did not commit. Certain individuals and organizations rightly do everything in their power to free these people. Peter Neufeld, the co-founder of one of these organizations, aptly named The Innocence Project says [Emphasis Added]

• Thousands of innocent people are languishing in prison for crimes they didn't commit. These citizens' most basic rights to life and liberty have been quashed by an egregious failure of our criminal justice system. Innocent Project centers are the last hope, not only for the victims, but also for the very concept of justice as we know it." [2]

Yet we are expected to believe that God Himself, whom we consistently refer to as a "loving God", would indulge in the greatest miscarriage of justice, involving billions of people, that this world has ever seen. We are expected to believe that God is less fair and less able to do right than any honest judge in the judicial system. That God Himself is less willing to consider the guilt or innocence of the individual than the organizations that work to free innocent people from jail, or even death row. That His moral sense is inferior to ours.

Yes, I am afraid that this doctrine is very hard to understand since it violates every single aspect that we treasure in our God, making Him a worse offender than the over zealous district attorney or the biased judge. In short it makes a hash of the justice of God which is the cornerstone of our faith.

 

[Lillywolf]

Maybe some excerpts of the OP linked article entitled, Original Sin and Epigenetics What exactly was it that Adam passed down to his descendants ? Carol Brooks, will help bring to peoples attention what the OP is about.
Exerpted in parts to make it somewhat easier to read and manage ones way to an informed opinion on the article content. It is an extensive information link in the OP.

Original Sin.. The Original Miscarriage of Justice
The term "Original Sin", which does not exist in the Bible or Jewish writings, is used in two senses ... a) Adam's sin of disobedience (commonly called The Fall) in eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and b) The moral corruption that is supposedly passed down from Adam to his descendants which causes every member of the human race to be born guilty of sin long before they commit one for themselves.

However there is certainly no consensus of opinion on what effects the sin of Adam had on our nature and/or standing before God. The three major views on "Original Sin" are

• a) Adam's sin had no effect upon his descendants other than providing a really bad example for the rest of humankind to follow.
  b) Adam's sin has resulted in his descendants inheriting a propensity or predisposition to sin. This tendency is often referred to as a "sin nature."
  c) Adam's sin has resulted in his descendants not only having a "sin nature", but inheriting the very sin of Adam and Eve and therefore condemned to hell because of it. In other words.. we all sinned when Adam sinned or, as they like to put it, we all sinned "in Adam".

Many Christians today, including most Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Catholics unblushingly subscribe to the third listed view, maintaining that the sin of Adam was transferred to all future generations, tainting even the unborn. Since infants carry the stain and guilt of the first sin ever committed, they have to be baptized to remove this sin and should they die before baptism they are unsanctified and forever excluded from heaven. This of course has led to the corollary doctrine and practice of Infant Baptism, which ignores the fact that there is not a single Bible verse that commands or even implies infant baptism. To say nothing of the danger that multitudes of people baptized as infants could grow up thinking they are saved and on their way to Heaven, even though they have never been born again through personal faith in Christ. [See Baptism and The New Birth]

Proponents often refer to this doctrine as "hard to understand". Is it any wonder that not only would someone find this hard to understand, but that a logical and fair minded human being would balk at the thought that they are condemned for a crime that they themselves did not commit. That a person’s sin is an affliction over which he has absolutely no control whatsoever.

Guilt and innocence are the warp and weft of the fabric of our justice system. Man’s fundamental concept of justice is that a person cannot be condemned and punished except for intentional, reckless or negligent wrong doing. Does it not speak volumes that we consider it a "miscarriage of justice" when an innocent person is sentenced for an illegal act he did not commit. Certain individuals and organizations rightly do everything in their power to free these people. Peter Neufeld, the co-founder of one of these organizations, aptly named The Innocence Project says [Emphasis Added]

• Thousands of innocent people are languishing in prison for crimes they didn't commit. These citizens' most basic rights to life and liberty have been quashed by an egregious failure of our criminal justice system. Innocent Project centers are the last hope, not only for the victims, but also for the very concept of justice as we know it." [2]

Yet we are expected to believe that God Himself, whom we consistently refer to as a "loving God", would indulge in the greatest miscarriage of justice, involving billions of people, that this world has ever seen. We are expected to believe that God is less fair and less able to do right than any honest judge in the judicial system. That God Himself is less willing to consider the guilt or innocence of the individual than the organizations that work to free innocent people from jail, or even death row. That His moral sense is inferior to ours.

Yes, I am afraid that this doctrine is very hard to understand since it violates every single aspect that we treasure in our God, making Him a worse offender than the over zealous district attorney or the biased judge. In short it makes a hash of the justice of God which is the cornerstone of our faith.

Original Sin and Augustine:
This well entrenched doctrine originated with some second and third century interpretations of Paul's writings, particularly the fifth chapter of Romans. However it was Augustine of Hippo who, in the fifth century (354-430), was largely responsible for transforming Paul's teachings on the Fall into the doctrine of Original Sin, teaching as he did that man is born into this world in a state of sin.

Augustine converted to Christianity from Manichaeism, in the year 387. The Manicheans were a syncretic religious sect led by Mani, a Buddhist-influenced ascetic born in Baghdad in the 3rd century AD. At it's peak, between the third and seventh centuries, it was one of the most widespread religions in the world. How much of Manichaeism carried over into Augustine's theology is a matter of debate, however there is little question that the Manichean dualistic view of the universe, enabled a person to deny any responsibility for his sins. Later Augustine fell under the influence of Platonism which provided him with a philosophical framework.

However the question one has to ask here (and I certainly ask it) is.... Why should we care what Augustine thought and why should it influence us a single iota one way or the other? It would take a lifetime to uncover the riches and layers of the Bible alone, yet men seem to have the time to attend to the voluminous writings of an ancient Catholic philosopher who believed in a purgatory, masses, prayers for the dead, the intercession of saints and martyrs in our favor and the innocence of Mary... In short all the superstitious baggage of the Catholic church.

What is wrong with us?

Why do we need fallible men to tell us what the Word of God says? Is not the Bible translated into a language we, with some application and study, can read and understand? Or are we simply so blinded or lazy that we swallow what we have been told, not stirring ourselves to check what others say by the Scriptures.

Although Augustine was Catholic to the core and wrong about any number of issues, his influence had disastrous and widespread consequences. John Calvin referred to Augustine as "holy man" and "holy father" , and quoted him over four hundred times in the Institutesalone. Calvin accepted Augustine’s fabrications in toto, with generations of theologians blindly following suit, teaching this fallacy to millions more.

The result of this unholy bias was the genesis of the five major Calvinistic doctrines which are: (1) Total Depravity (or absolute inability) (2) Unconditional Election, (3) Limited Atonement, (4) Irresistible Grace and (5) Perseverance of the Saints. All five points are so entwined that they pretty much stand, or fall, together. It is virtually impossible to accept or reject one point without doing the same with the other four.

 

[Lillywolf]

Original Sin and Augustine:
This well entrenched doctrine originated with some second and third century interpretations of Paul's writings, particularly the fifth chapter of Romans. However it was Augustine of Hippo who, in the fifth century (354-430), was largely responsible for transforming Paul's teachings on the Fall into the doctrine of Original Sin, teaching as he did that man is born into this world in a state of sin.

Augustine converted to Christianity from Manichaeism, in the year 387. The Manicheans were a syncretic religious sect led by Mani, a Buddhist-influenced ascetic born in Baghdad in the 3rd century AD. At it's peak, between the third and seventh centuries, it was one of the most widespread religions in the world. How much of Manichaeism carried over into Augustine's theology is a matter of debate, however there is little question that the Manichean dualistic view of the universe, enabled a person to deny any responsibility for his sins. Later Augustine fell under the influence of Platonism which provided him with a philosophical framework.

However the question one has to ask here (and I certainly ask it) is.... Why should we care what Augustine thought and why should it influence us a single iota one way or the other? It would take a lifetime to uncover the riches and layers of the Bible alone, yet men seem to have the time to attend to the voluminous writings of an ancient Catholic philosopher who believed in a purgatory, masses, prayers for the dead, the intercession of saints and martyrs in our favor and the innocence of Mary... In short all the superstitious baggage of the Catholic church.

What is wrong with us?

Why do we need fallible men to tell us what the Word of God says? Is not the Bible translated into a language we, with some application and study, can read and understand? Or are we simply so blinded or lazy that we swallow what we have been told, not stirring ourselves to check what others say by the Scriptures.

Although Augustine was Catholic to the core and wrong about any number of issues, his influence had disastrous and widespread consequences. John Calvin referred to Augustine as "holy man" and "holy father" , and quoted him over four hundred times in the Institutesalone. Calvin accepted Augustine’s fabrications in toto, with generations of theologians blindly following suit, teaching this fallacy to millions more.

The result of this unholy bias was the genesis of the five major Calvinistic doctrines which are: (1) Total Depravity (or absolute inability) (2) Unconditional Election, (3) Limited Atonement, (4) Irresistible Grace and (5) Perseverance of the Saints. All five points are so entwined that they pretty much stand, or fall, together. It is virtually impossible to accept or reject one point without doing the same with the other four.

Original Sin.. The Lynch Pin of Calvinism:
Underlying all of Calvinism is the doctrine of Original Sin, which would have us believe that our fallen state renders us incapable of choosing God and, of ourselves, powerless to respond to God's offer of salvation. In the words of a Calvinistic site.. [Emphasis Added]

• The doctrine of total depravity is that as a result of the Adam's sin in the garden of Eden (the fall), every part of every human being has been corrupted by sin. ... Every part of man's being (body, soul, heart, mind, strength, emotions, intentions, will, inclinations, etc.) has been corrupted by sin. Sin's taint makes every person, and every part of every person, unacceptable before God. Sin's corruption also prevents every person from doing anything meritorious for salvation, and makes every person so hostile toward God that he cannot and will not repent of his sin or accept the gospel...
  What total depravity does mean is that no one is innocent of sin, and that no one standing on his own merit is righteous in God's eyes (not even infants). It also emphasizes that, as a result of Adam's sin, man is born spiritually dead, having a corrupted nature which desires to sin and which hates God. Since man cannot act contrarily to his nature, man has no ability to do anything truly pleasing to God. Everything man does comes from a heart that hates God, and therefore everything man does is fundamentally unacceptable in God's sight. This is why man in his natural state can never be good enough to save himself, and can never savingly accept the gospel of his own accord. [3]

Since man is incapable of saying, doing, thinking or believing anything that would propel him towards salvation, God Himself must step in and elect certain individuals to salvation (Unconditional Election). Of course it naturally follows that if it is God that wills a person to be saved, there is no way that person can fall from grace or get "unsaved" (Perseverance of the Saints).

Without the bedrock of Original Sin, the entire edifice would crumble. So the basic question is


Part II... Ignored Facts


...What Is Sin?
I wonder how many of those that profess to believe in Original Sin have given any thought to the fact that..

Sin is not a substance with physical properties that, like a virus, can be transmitted from person to person. If it were a substance that can be physically passed on, then virtue, goodness, and righteousness must also be substances that can be transmitted physically.

Sin is a conscious, willful act performed by an individual (in word, deed, or thought) that opposes God's will... it is an immoral choice made by the sinner, that transgresses God's law. Therefore apart from the sinner who makes the choice, then commits the act, sin can not even exist.

• "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." [1 John: 3:4]
  To him therefore that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. [James: 4:17]

Yet theologians persist in the belief, more fit for a science fiction script than the Scriptures, that sin has been passed on physically from Adam to all his descendants, yet fail to tell us a) Why it is that we can only inherit sin from Adam but not from the rest of our ancestors b) Why it is that we can inherit sin but not inherit righteousness. and c) How it is that Adam's sin can come through our parents even if they are true Christians and therefore, in the words of the apostles John and Paul, have been cleansed from all sin.

• If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness [1 John: 1:9]
  and being made free from sin ye became servants of righteousness [Romans: 6:18]

If, at the moment of conception, our parents were Christians who have been cleansed from all sin, there would be no sin to inherit. If there were no sin to inherit, surely we would be born pure. If sinners can beget sinners, saints should beget saints!


Adam's Sin and The Book of Genesis:

Adam.. Morally Perfect and Immortal? One should expect that when a major belief system stands or falls on a single doctrine, there should be unequivocal proof for this doctrine in the Scriptures.

But, far from this being the case, Original Sin and the resulting depravity of man is based not on sure Scriptures but on unproven philosophic assumptions, which have been unquestionably accepted. It is assumed that Adam was created morally perfect but, due to his sin, lost perfection and became totally corrupt and alienated from God. He then passed on this despicable nature to all his descendants. The Baptist Confession of Faith says [All Emphasis Added]

• After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, with reasoning and immortal souls, rendering them fit to live that life for Him for which they were created; - being made in the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness;having the law of God written in their hearts, and having the power to fulfil it;

However where do the Scriptures say that Adam and Eve were created either morally perfect or immortal? Much less that they had "the law of God written in their hearts"? Are we not getting carried away with much speaking.. building one invention on the shoulders of another? Or do we just like the sound of all these fancy phrases as they trip off our tongues?

 

[Lillywolf]

God Called Creation “Good”
The fact that God called His creation "good" in Genesis 1:31 does not mean it was all morally perfect. According to Strong’s Hebrew and Greek lexicon, the Hebrew word translated good (which occurs over 550 times in the Old Testament) can mean goodness, beauty, gladness, fair, joy etc. It says nothing about moral perfection. The words in bold in the quotes below are a few examples of the variety of way the word is used..

• and I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Amorite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. [Exodus 3:8]
  And Moses' father-in-law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good. [Exodus 18:17]
  And Ephraim is a heifer that is taught, that loveth to tread out the grain; but I have passed over upon her fair neck: I will set a rider on Ephraim; Judah shall plow, Jacob shall break his clods. [Hosea 10:11]
  And it came to pass, when their hearts were merry, that they said, Call for Samson, that he may make us sport. And they called for Samson out of the prison-house; and he made sport before them. And they set him between the pillars:[Judges 16:25]
  And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. [1 Samuel 8:16]

Certainly Adam and Eve were probably innocent, as is anyone who has never encountered anything evil or bad. It is also reasonable to surmise that they lost some of this innocence when they first sinned, in light of the fact that they went and hid when God came to the garden (Genesis: 3:7,8). anything beyond this is sheer speculation, upon which the entire Calvinist doctrine of salvation is based.


God “Forgot” To Mention:
One would think that if Adam's transgression had such a monumental effect on all future generations it would at least be mentioned in the account. Yet, nowhere in the Old Testament is it explicitly stated that Adam's sin was passed down, that man was "in Adam" in the fall. In fact, the silence in the book of Genesis is deafening. All we are told is that, in view of Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Good and Evil, God did not want them to also partake of the Tree of Life, and live for ever (Genesis: 3:22), therefore He banished them from the garden (Genesis: 3:23). The man was cursed with having to work for food and the ground that was also cursed would hand him thorns and thistles (Genesis: 3:17-19). The woman was cursed with great pain in childbirth (Genesis: 3:16).

Both these curses fade into insignificance compared to the monumental consequences of all Adam's descendants inheriting his sin and consequently not being able to respond to God, yet not a single word is breathed about this. We are to believe that God forgot to mention the most devastating consequence of all?


Three Questions
Besides which there are several questions that those that preach Original Sin have no answer for, nor can they explain...

• a) It is often claimed that we sin because we are "wholly inclined" towards evil and "utterly indisposed" towards good. In other words we sin because we have inherited Adam's depravity. This may explain why we sin, but it does not explain why Adam sinned. He was, supposedly, were created righteous and obviously had the advantage of not inheriting any depravity... yet he still sinned. If Adam became depraved only after he sinned, then why did he sin before he was depraved?
  b) The second question is why would Adam's descendants be held responsible for his first sin only, and not for his later sins? Why would we not also be held responsible for the sins of all our forefathers that came after Adam?
  c) And thirdly, since Christ shared our human nature through His mother, why was He not considered guilty of Adam's sin?

Oh wait! I remember! Mary is also considered free of the stain of sin, somehow having escaped inheriting Original Sin like the rest of humanity. Or at least that's what the Catholic church tells us (The Protestants have no answer as to how Jesus escaped Original Sin). Talk about having to dig into the recesses of imagination to come up with one myth to cover a major flaw in another.

So let us bypass all other influences, imaginations and endless torrents of seven syllable words and take a look at what the Bible itself has to say which, by the way, it does in no uncertain terms.

 

[Lillywolf]

God Called Creation “Good”
The fact that God called His creation "good" in Genesis 1:31 does not mean it was all morally perfect. According to Strong’s Hebrew and Greek lexicon, the Hebrew word translated good (which occurs over 550 times in the Old Testament) can mean goodness, beauty, gladness, fair, joy etc. It says nothing about moral perfection. The words in bold in the quotes below are a few examples of the variety of way the word is used..

• and I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Amorite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. [Exodus 3:8]
  And Moses' father-in-law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good. [Exodus 18:17]
  And Ephraim is a heifer that is taught, that loveth to tread out the grain; but I have passed over upon her fair neck: I will set a rider on Ephraim; Judah shall plow, Jacob shall break his clods. [Hosea 10:11]
  And it came to pass, when their hearts were merry, that they said, Call for Samson, that he may make us sport. And they called for Samson out of the prison-house; and he made sport before them. And they set him between the pillars:[Judges 16:25]
  And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. [1 Samuel 8:16]

Certainly Adam and Eve were probably innocent, as is anyone who has never encountered anything evil or bad. It is also reasonable to surmise that they lost some of this innocence when they first sinned, in light of the fact that they went and hid when God came to the garden (Genesis: 3:7,8). anything beyond this is sheer speculation, upon which the entire Calvinist doctrine of salvation is based.


God “Forgot” To Mention:
One would think that if Adam's transgression had such a monumental effect on all future generations it would at least be mentioned in the account. Yet, nowhere in the Old Testament is it explicitly stated that Adam's sin was passed down, that man was "in Adam" in the fall. In fact, the silence in the book of Genesis is deafening. All we are told is that, in view of Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Good and Evil, God did not want them to also partake of the Tree of Life, and live for ever (Genesis: 3:22), therefore He banished them from the garden (Genesis: 3:23). The man was cursed with having to work for food and the ground that was also cursed would hand him thorns and thistles (Genesis: 3:17-19). The woman was cursed with great pain in childbirth (Genesis: 3:16).

Both these curses fade into insignificance compared to the monumental consequences of all Adam's descendants inheriting his sin and consequently not being able to respond to God, yet not a single word is breathed about this. We are to believe that God forgot to mention the most devastating consequence of all?


Three Questions
Besides which there are several questions that those that preach Original Sin have no answer for, nor can they explain...

• a) It is often claimed that we sin because we are "wholly inclined" towards evil and "utterly indisposed" towards good. In other words we sin because we have inherited Adam's depravity. This may explain why we sin, but it does not explain why Adam sinned. He was, supposedly, were created righteous and obviously had the advantage of not inheriting any depravity... yet he still sinned. If Adam became depraved only after he sinned, then why did he sin before he was depraved?
  b) The second question is why would Adam's descendants be held responsible for his first sin only, and not for his later sins? Why would we not also be held responsible for the sins of all our forefathers that came after Adam?
  c) And thirdly, since Christ shared our human nature through His mother, why was He not considered guilty of Adam's sin?

Oh wait! I remember! Mary is also considered free of the stain of sin, somehow having escaped inheriting Original Sin like the rest of humanity. Or at least that's what the Catholic church tells us (The Protestants have no answer as to how Jesus escaped Original Sin). Talk about having to dig into the recesses of imagination to come up with one myth to cover a major flaw in another.

So let us bypass all other influences, imaginations and endless torrents of seven syllable words and take a look at what the Bible itself has to say which, by the way, it does in no uncertain terms.

Guilty By Inheritance or Guilty by Deed?
All the following passages say a person becomes guilty of sin when he himself commits or practices wrong. Conspicuous by their absence from the Bible are verses that specifically say that a person is guilty of sin because he inherited guilt from Adam and before he himself commits sin. [All Emphasis Added]

In the next three verses sin is defined as something a person does, not something he inherits.

• Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin. John: 8:34]
  Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. [1 John: 3:4]
  he that doeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. [1 John: 3:8]

A man is defiled by things he does ... decisions he makes in his own heart, not because of that which he inherits.

• And he said, That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, covetings, wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness: all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man. [Mark: 7:20-23]

This verse does not say we have fallen short of the glory of God because Adam sinned, but because we have all sinned, and, like the people of Jeremiah's day will pay the price, accustomed as they (and we) are to doing evil

• for all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God; [Romans: 3:23]
  Because ye have burned incense, and because ye have sinned against Jehovah, and have not obeyed the voice of Jehovah, nor walked in his law, nor in his statutes, nor in his testimonies; therefore this evil is happened unto you, as it is this day. [Jeremiah: 44:23]
  Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. [Jeremiah: 13:23]

How is an already totally depraved heart be darkened?

• because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. [Romans: 1:21]

Although the supposedly most compelling proof texts for Original Sin are dragged out of the book of Romans, it is this same book that provides most telling passages that speak against Original Sin saying, as it does, that the Gentiles not having the benefit of God's written law, can yet have sufficient ability or conscience to know right from wrong and can instinctively keep the law . How could they instinctively keep the requirements of the law if they were totally depraved?

• For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves. in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them. [Romans: 2:14-15]

People become servants of sin because they present themselves, their own members, as servants of uncleanness. They are instructed to present themselves as servants of righteousness.

• I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye presented your members as servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now present your members as servants to righteousness unto sanctification. [Romans: 6:19]

James is clear. A man becomes worthy of death when he himself responds to temptation by sinning. He is considered a sinner and a transgressor of the law only when he breaks one point of the law.

• but each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is fullgrown, bringeth forth death. [James: 1:14,15]
  For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become a transgressor of the law. [James: 2:10,11]

The Old Testament Emphasizes That We Are Held Accountable For Our Own Sins Only.....

 

[Churinga]

Maybe some excerpts of the OP linked article entitled, Original Sin and Epigenetics What exactly was it that Adam passed down to his descendants ? Carol Brooks, will help bring to peoples attention what the OP is about.
Exerpted in parts to make it somewhat easier to read and manage ones way to an informed opinion on the article content. It is an extensive information link in the OP.

Original Sin.. The Original Miscarriage of Justice
The term "Original Sin", which does not exist in the Bible or Jewish writings, is used in two senses ... a) Adam's sin of disobedience (commonly called The Fall) in eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and b) The moral corruption that is supposedly passed down from Adam to his descendants which causes every member of the human race to be born guilty of sin long before they commit one for themselves.

However there is certainly no consensus of opinion on what effects the sin of Adam had on our nature and/or standing before God. The three major views on "Original Sin" are

• a) Adam's sin had no effect upon his descendants other than providing a really bad example for the rest of humankind to follow.
  b) Adam's sin has resulted in his descendants inheriting a propensity or predisposition to sin. This tendency is often referred to as a "sin nature."
  c) Adam's sin has resulted in his descendants not only having a "sin nature", but inheriting the very sin of Adam and Eve and therefore condemned to hell because of it. In other words.. we all sinned when Adam sinned or, as they like to put it, we all sinned "in Adam".

Many Christians today, including most Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Catholics unblushingly subscribe to the third listed view, maintaining that the sin of Adam was transferred to all future generations, tainting even the unborn. Since infants carry the stain and guilt of the first sin ever committed, they have to be baptized to remove this sin and should they die before baptism they are unsanctified and forever excluded from heaven. This of course has led to the corollary doctrine and practice of Infant Baptism, which ignores the fact that there is not a single Bible verse that commands or even implies infant baptism. To say nothing of the danger that multitudes of people baptized as infants could grow up thinking they are saved and on their way to Heaven, even though they have never been born again through personal faith in Christ. [See Baptism and The New Birth]

Proponents often refer to this doctrine as "hard to understand". Is it any wonder that not only would someone find this hard to understand, but that a logical and fair minded human being would balk at the thought that they are condemned for a crime that they themselves did not commit. That a person’s sin is an affliction over which he has absolutely no control whatsoever.

Guilt and innocence are the warp and weft of the fabric of our justice system. Man’s fundamental concept of justice is that a person cannot be condemned and punished except for intentional, reckless or negligent wrong doing. Does it not speak volumes that we consider it a "miscarriage of justice" when an innocent person is sentenced for an illegal act he did not commit. Certain individuals and organizations rightly do everything in their power to free these people. Peter Neufeld, the co-founder of one of these organizations, aptly named The Innocence Project says [Emphasis Added]

• Thousands of innocent people are languishing in prison for crimes they didn't commit. These citizens' most basic rights to life and liberty have been quashed by an egregious failure of our criminal justice system. Innocent Project centers are the last hope, not only for the victims, but also for the very concept of justice as we know it." [2]

Yet we are expected to believe that God Himself, whom we consistently refer to as a "loving God", would indulge in the greatest miscarriage of justice, involving billions of people, that this world has ever seen. We are expected to believe that God is less fair and less able to do right than any honest judge in the judicial system. That God Himself is less willing to consider the guilt or innocence of the individual than the organizations that work to free innocent people from jail, or even death row. That His moral sense is inferior to ours.

Yes, I am afraid that this doctrine is very hard to understand since it violates every single aspect that we treasure in our God, making Him a worse offender than the over zealous district attorney or the biased judge. In short it makes a hash of the justice of God which is the cornerstone of our faith.

I certainly appreciate what you have Lillywolf and may cause those arrogant people that take the attitude that anything that conflicts with their ingrained indoctrination without investigation is heresy or worse, the link contains all the information and then some, to allow those interested to make an informed decision about the subject matter, the attitude of the respondents to this attempt by an old man to place the word of honest Christians into a public area to be trampled on can they be the same people that want to named as followers of our Lord is hard to comprehend.

 

[Lillywolf]

I certainly appreciate what you have Lillywolf and may cause those arrogant people that take the attitude that anything that conflicts with their ingrained indoctrination without investigation is heresy or worse, the link contains all the information and then some, to allow those interested to make an informed decision about the subject matter, the attitude of the respondents to this attempt by an old man to place the word of honest Christians into a public area to be trampled on can they be the same people that want to named as followers of our Lord is hard to comprehend.

There are those who read the scriptures and do not comprehend that there is more in the teaching than that which is written. It is a path to wisdom, the Bible.
Then there are those who can be afraid to learn something beyond what they hold to as truth. Fear leads to hate and hate to destruction. Fear of going to Hell if they veer from what they're hardwired to accept as truth. This can arrive if they're indoctrinated into a faith system from the time they were carried as newborns to church.
Then there are those for whom the word has no meaning whatsoever and when it comes to be proven they cannot fake it they become defensive among those who are not so.

We become upset as those who know the word of God is an ever blossoming tree of truth with many branches that appear in our individual personal relationship with the planter Himself. Probably because we do not wish anyone to live blind in this world where darkness seeks to rule and its lord is the extinguisher of lights.
However, whatever you do don't ever let the darkness, that which seeks to trod truth underfoot, take you from your peace of heart and mind. If you read something that kindles that in you, walk away from the computer and take time to breathe in the peace of Christ. Pray, read scripture, hold the Bible itself in your hands, not a link to a Bible site, unless that's all you have as a saving resource. Open the Bible at random and see what scripture appears.
I do this. And I read the left columns of scripture and then the right. And most times, the first scripture that I look to anywhere in those two pages after I open the book is the one I need right then to get me through.
Read God's mercy, not troubled souls efforts to darken those alive in the prince of peace.

Hope that helps. Blessings to you.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Did you read the post and the link in the OP?

I do not need to. The introductory passage in the OP was TOTALLY MISLEADING and worse. Why don t we stick with Scripture (Q) Do you have a problem with that (Q)

 

[Nehemiah6]

The question must be asked as to whether you read the whole post including all the link?

When something tastes bad with a small nibble, it does not need to be swallowed.

 

[Lillywolf]

I do not need to. The introductory passage in the OP was TOTALLY MISLEADING and worse. Why don t we stick with Scripture (Q) Do you have a problem with that (Q)

The problem admittedly is yours.
It is a falsehood to claim the introductory passage in the OP is totally misleading. Capitalizing, screaming, your error does not make the error, the falsehood, correct.

The opening passage in the OP is taken directly from the link you state you don't need to read. And yet, you feel you are entitled to impugn the integrity of our brother in Christ who posted the OP.
You made a judgmental statement, (the introductory passage in the OP was totally misleading), without knowing one iota of truth about the introductory passage in the OP. .
Truth is, the introductory passage in the OP is the opening passage in the link!
You could have avoided the embarassment by actually paying attention to the introductory passage in the OP wherein it had a Bibliographical cue at the end. I.E [1]

And the article linked in the OP, an extensive study actually, is replete with scriptures and history as pertains thereto.
This is the introductory passage in the linked article in the OP. What the OP is missing is the first header that preceded what was posted as the introductory passage. None the less, it is very clear it is an excerpt, the OP introductory passage.

Part I.. God’s Skewed Sense of Justice or Augustine’s Skewed Ideas

Introduction
The entire doctrine of Original Sin is succinctly summed up in the following statement excerpted from an article entitled The Myth of Original Sin by Tom Overstreet..

• Most Christians who profess to believe in the doctrine of original sin are ignorant of exactly what its teachings really are. They are ignorant of the fact that the doctrine has not always existed. They are ignorant of the fact that it evolved, that it had its roots in a heathen philosophy, and that it was made a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church in the 5th century A.D. They are ignorant of the fact that it is only a theory, and that there is really not one but several differing theories that have evolved and come down to us in the church. They are also ignorant of the fact that the Bible passages used as proof-texts for this doctrine have been taken out of context and tortured into teaching a doctrine that is completely foreign to the Bible. Finally, they are ignorant of the fact that the doctrine of original sin is an evil doctrine that corrupts Christian practice, blackens the character of God, excuses sin in the sinner, contradicts the Bible, makes Jesus a sinner, harms the cause of Christ, and stumbles professing Christians into hell. And it is this ignorance of Christians concerning these facts that helps to protect and perpetuate the doctrine of original sin. [1]

This is our brother in Christ's OP: (In quote form so as to fairly display the entire OP as published)

The entire doctrine of Original Sin is succinctly summed up in the following statement excerpted from an article entitled The Myth of Original Sin by Tom Overstreet..

• Most Christians who profess to believe in the doctrine of original sin are ignorant of exactly what its teachings really are. They are ignorant of the fact that the doctrine has not always existed. They are ignorant of the fact that it evolved, that it had its roots in a heathen philosophy, and that it was made a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church in the 5th century A.D. They are ignorant of the fact that it is only a theory, and that there is really not one but several differing theories that have evolved and come down to us in the church. They are also ignorant of the fact that the Bible passages used as proof-texts for this doctrine have been taken out of context and tortured into teaching a doctrine that is completely foreign to the Bible. Finally, they are ignorant of the fact that the doctrine of original sin is an evil doctrine that corrupts Christian practice, blackens the character of God, excuses sin in the sinner, contradicts the Bible, makes Jesus a sinner, harms the cause of Christ, and stumbles professing Christians into hell. And it is this ignorance of Christians concerning these facts that helps to protect and perpetuate the doctrine of original sin. [1]

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/original_sin_fact_or_fable.html

 

[Lillywolf]

When something tastes bad with a small nibble, it does not need to be swallowed.

If one thinks themselves clever using a simile such as that consider that with your prior admission, not reading the link, and in that post clearly not having read the introductory passage copied verbatim, that you'd have been better off admitting you sewed your mouth shut before making a quip about tastes. You are now speaking through your nose.

Simply, you've no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Lillywolf]

"Most Christians who profess to believe in the doctrine of original sin are ignorant..." AND these are the first words of your quote. The writer claims superior knowledge which turns me off immediately,..and besides he is just plain wrong.

How so? Do you believe you are a born sinner?

 

[seed_time_harvest]

Sin is a conscious act performed by individuals that will contravene mans knowledge of right and wrong it is voluntary not inbred as some want us to believe, babies cry for a multitude of reasons not to exercise their sin nature.

Romans 7:20-23
King James Version(KJV)


20.)Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21.)I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22.) For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23.)But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

 

[seed_time_harvest]

Original sin is a doctrine ( doctrine - a teaching in Christianity ) because it has a place in the dogma on the state of the natural man, why we are born with the stain of sin. Adam as the federal head of the human race has been held as the one accountable in Romans 5. that his sin was imputed to all mankind.

Don't forget about the age of accountability.
Sin Is not Imputed where there Is no law.

 

[GraceAndTruth]

Don't forget about the age of accountability.
Sin Is not Imputed where there Is no law.

EVERYONE IS born with the stain of sin and all must be washed in the blood of Christ for the stain to be removed.
Babies, cute little sinner though they may be, are not born innocent of that stain.
There is no "age of accountability" that refers to being free of sin. If you see that in the bible then post it so we can all be enlightened.

 

[Churinga]

In this age of internet and various other electronic gadgetry sharing ones experiences in places like Christian Chat will always mean treading on somebodies toes and suffering the consequences not by intentionally setting out to do so and the outcomes are no always welcome. The subject matter in this post always ruffles feathers because swimming against the tide of mainstream teaching in the Protestant Churches must require well structured writing with appropriate scripture to support what is being put before what is an unknown audience for constructive criticism, but when the same audience exercises their right to refuse to look at any alternate scriptural view by way of a closed mind to anything ingrained by a particular bias from years of indoctrination through a local congregation of family upbringing a level playing field is impossible. The question arises as to whether the subject is a salvation issue and each individual must make up his or her own mind as to the answer. I have learnt over time that thinking outside the square and make inquiries in the Jewish teachings about Original Sin and it s many derivatives the answer is an emphatic no it is as repugnant as the Christian teaching of the Trinity.