The Cherub with the flaming sword.
The Catholic faith believes that sexual love was original sin; but in genesis 4:1, it says, Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived. But no where in that passage does it say that God was wrougth with either Adam or Eve for doing so.
In the new testament, Corinthians 7:36, it says, But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require let him do what he will; he sinneth not: let them marry.
Now, if sexual love is original sin but in the new testament it says, he (they) sinneth not then how, if Adam and Eve dwelt as one flesh; and were man and wife, then how could their sexual love be considered sin?
Now, according to the bible, man was made after the likeness of God. If man was made after the likeness of God then we could assume some attributes that are shared between man and God: for instance, man consumes food, speaks through verbal communication and even has genetalia.
We can further expand this concept of likeness by saying that animals were made in the likenss of God; since it is evident that they too share attributes with man; as it is evident. And for one being--that we share genetalia. Do we say that animals sin? No. We don't--that we may see that Gods' command: Be fruitful and multiply is part of His will. The only difference between man and animal is that--we(man) ate from the tree that God commanded not to eat of; therefore, we became like the gods, to know the difference between good and evil; whereas, animals ate not of the tree; therefore, they never came to know the difference between good and evil.
According to the bible, 1 John 3:4, whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law.
If we can assume that anything God commands becomes law; and if sin is the transgression of God's law, then we could assume that original sin would not be sexual love, rather, Adams' first transgression was disobeying Gods' command--to not eat of the tree that is in the midst of the garden.
It would then follow that a direct affect from Adam's transgression was his realization that he and Eve were naked; therefore, they came to know shame, which is the uncleaness of the body.
Because in Romans 14:14, it says, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Never in the words of Christ does he mention that the body is unclean, rather, it is the church which has appointed uncleaness to the body; for in Christ, He elevated the body when He spoke--Is not the body finer than raiment? (Matthew 6:25)
Note--that never in Christ's words does He say anything about sexual love as being original sin, rather, He speaks of fornication and adultry as being sin.
Now, shame is sin; as after Adam had transgressed the command (law)--to not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden--sin entered the world; therefore, it could be assumed that shame was Adams' second sin; since, according to the new testament, Christ says there is no shame in the body; for He had elevated it by saying--Is not the body finer than raiment? Shame transgresses this saying of Christ, since it lowers what Christ had elevated--the body.
To further support this claim, I would have you refer to Romans 10:11, For the scripture saith, whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
To the church is the body a shame and most in particular, the genitals. And herein lies the hypocrisy of the church; if you will refer to 1 Corinthians 12: 21-23,...And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
Likewise, how is it that the eye of the church has bestowed dishonour to the genitals by saying because you have been used by the body--you (the genitals) have become a shame to us and deemed sinful; and called a part of original sin?
By calling the genitals part of original sin, and in so doing, the church has bestowed dishonour to this portion of the body; for the eye has seen the genetals and said to itself that the genitals are a shame and deemed unnecessary.
As I have foretold, in 1 John 3:4,...for sin is the transgression of the law.
And what was Adams' first transgression? It was his disobedience to Gods' command--to not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden; therefore, since Adams' first transgression was this then in essence, this could be, and is, original sin.
The genitals are beauty.
This you cannot accept because no one drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine.
The Catholic faith believes that sexual love was original sin; but in genesis 4:1, it says, Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived. But no where in that passage does it say that God was wrougth with either Adam or Eve for doing so.
In the new testament, Corinthians 7:36, it says, But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require let him do what he will; he sinneth not: let them marry.
Now, if sexual love is original sin but in the new testament it says, he (they) sinneth not then how, if Adam and Eve dwelt as one flesh; and were man and wife, then how could their sexual love be considered sin?
Now, according to the bible, man was made after the likeness of God. If man was made after the likeness of God then we could assume some attributes that are shared between man and God: for instance, man consumes food, speaks through verbal communication and even has genetalia.
We can further expand this concept of likeness by saying that animals were made in the likenss of God; since it is evident that they too share attributes with man; as it is evident. And for one being--that we share genetalia. Do we say that animals sin? No. We don't--that we may see that Gods' command: Be fruitful and multiply is part of His will. The only difference between man and animal is that--we(man) ate from the tree that God commanded not to eat of; therefore, we became like the gods, to know the difference between good and evil; whereas, animals ate not of the tree; therefore, they never came to know the difference between good and evil.
According to the bible, 1 John 3:4, whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law.
If we can assume that anything God commands becomes law; and if sin is the transgression of God's law, then we could assume that original sin would not be sexual love, rather, Adams' first transgression was disobeying Gods' command--to not eat of the tree that is in the midst of the garden.
It would then follow that a direct affect from Adam's transgression was his realization that he and Eve were naked; therefore, they came to know shame, which is the uncleaness of the body.
Because in Romans 14:14, it says, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Never in the words of Christ does he mention that the body is unclean, rather, it is the church which has appointed uncleaness to the body; for in Christ, He elevated the body when He spoke--Is not the body finer than raiment? (Matthew 6:25)
Note--that never in Christ's words does He say anything about sexual love as being original sin, rather, He speaks of fornication and adultry as being sin.
Now, shame is sin; as after Adam had transgressed the command (law)--to not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden--sin entered the world; therefore, it could be assumed that shame was Adams' second sin; since, according to the new testament, Christ says there is no shame in the body; for He had elevated it by saying--Is not the body finer than raiment? Shame transgresses this saying of Christ, since it lowers what Christ had elevated--the body.
To further support this claim, I would have you refer to Romans 10:11, For the scripture saith, whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
To the church is the body a shame and most in particular, the genitals. And herein lies the hypocrisy of the church; if you will refer to 1 Corinthians 12: 21-23,...And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
Likewise, how is it that the eye of the church has bestowed dishonour to the genitals by saying because you have been used by the body--you (the genitals) have become a shame to us and deemed sinful; and called a part of original sin?
By calling the genitals part of original sin, and in so doing, the church has bestowed dishonour to this portion of the body; for the eye has seen the genetals and said to itself that the genitals are a shame and deemed unnecessary.
As I have foretold, in 1 John 3:4,...for sin is the transgression of the law.
And what was Adams' first transgression? It was his disobedience to Gods' command--to not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden; therefore, since Adams' first transgression was this then in essence, this could be, and is, original sin.
The genitals are beauty.
This you cannot accept because no one drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine.