Original Sin

[LAGC]

One thing I've never quite understood about Christianity is the concept of "original sin."

I mean, by definition, a Christian believes God is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (everywhere), and omnibenevolent (all-good) -- am I wrong on this?

If so, then why are we (humans) forever to be denied eternal life (or cast into eternal hell-fire if you prefer) simply because our forebears (Adam and Eve) "ate fruit" from a forbidden "tree" at the behest of a "talking snake"?

Nevermind the theory of evolution that suggests there may have been no common Adam and Eve ancestors who were ever alive at the same time in history at all, but let's just assume they really existed at the same time as the Bible says: why would God hold such an insignificant thing as "eating" from the wrong "tree" against humanity for all time? I mean, God designed them right? And God knows everything right? So truly he knew they were going to "eat" the "forbidden fruit" before he even told them not to! Yet God still chooses to hold it against us all for all time, why?

I mean, isn't that the reason we supposedly need to accept Jesus as our Savior, because of original sin? Because no matter how good we are in our lives we are forever "tainted" because of an ignorant choice made by our forebears? Does that seem very compassionate or omnibenevolent to you?

I mean, if God is so great and all-powerful and all-knowing and everything, why the games? Isn't it quite petty and silly for such a powerful being to concern himself with such trivialities? Why would an all-powerful God care whether or not his lowly creations paid homage to Him through prayer and worship? Isn't that kind of conceited? Isn't God above such petty human characteristics?

What makes us so sure God really cares about us at all? Maybe he just did his "magic" at the beginning of time with the creation of the universe and has been completely hands off ever since. That's a position I could almost respect. But this idea that God let life evolve on this planet for billions of years and only 2000 years ago decided to send a "Savior" down to "save us" from this "original sin" and has been mysteriously absent ever since.

I don't know. It just doesn't make much sense.

 

[Jpark]

If so, then why are we (humans) forever to be denied eternal life (or cast into eternal hell-fire if you prefer) simply because our forebears (Adam and Eve) "ate fruit" from a forbidden "tree" at the behest of a "talking snake"?

Scripture indicates that we were punished in the place of Adam and Eve. Take a look at this.

...why would God hold such an insignificant thing as "eating" from the wrong "tree" against humanity for all time?

God didn't interrogate Adam because he ate from the tree, but because he disobeyed Him. The tree was actually insignificant. If God had commanded Adam to eat from the tree, and Adam had refused, then he would still have been interrogated since he disobeyed. It's a matter of disobedience.

I mean, God designed them right? And God knows everything right? So truly he knew they were going to "eat" the "forbidden fruit" before he even told them not to! Yet God still chooses to hold it against us all for all time, why?

It was certainly foreknown and (apparently) predetermined (Gen. 3:15). Man couldn't be held responsible. So why are they held responsible? Because they did not repent. During predetermined instances, man is not judged for their deeds, but for not repenting of their deeds. God initiated repentance for Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:9-13).

I mean, isn't that the reason we supposedly need to accept Jesus as our Savior, because of original sin? Because no matter how good we are in our lives we are forever "tainted" because of an ignorant choice made by our forebears? Does that seem very compassionate or omnibenevolent to you?

Our lives become tainted because we do not repent of the sins. Sinful nature is merely inclination to sin. No one is born as a sinner. However, they will eventually sin (1 John 1:10) and have sin (1 John 1:8).

I mean, if God is so great and all-powerful and all-knowing and everything, why the games? Isn't it quite petty and silly for such a powerful being to concern himself with such trivialities? Why would an all-powerful God care whether or not his lowly creations paid homage to Him through prayer and worship? Isn't that kind of conceited? Isn't God above such petty human characteristics?

He doesn't want worship. He wants true worship (John 4:23).

True worship of God is knowing Him (John 4:23 ...the true worshipers will worship the Father in... truth (John 14:6 truth = Jesus).

Paul himself emphasizes knowing Jesus (Phil. 3:8).

Scripture tells us that coming to the knowledge of the truth = salvation.

So knowing Jesus = salvation

Ezekiel demonstrates God's yearning for the world to know Him. So why doesn't He just show Himself? Because He is giving people time for repentance by faith. If He showed Himself, many would come to repentance, but this would not be by faith.

I don't know. It just doesn't make much sense.

So for now, it is a matter of faith until God reveals Himself.

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

The tree Adam and Eve ate from (perhaps symbolically) was the tree of knowledge.

but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die [spiritually] (Genesis 2:17)

Once they ate the fruit they obtained knowledge that only God had up until that point - that is the knowledge of good and evil.

For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:5)

Thus after eating the fruit, man obtained the free will to do evil, or to do good. Since you and I are decedents of Adam and Eve we too have this knowledge. We are not condemned because of what Adam and Eve did, we freely choose to do the evil we do. We can chose not to if we want.

I know this doesn't make much sense because you are not one of His. Pray that God will reveal himself to you and then you will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free.

 

[razeontherock]

One thing I've never quite understood about Christianity is the concept of "original sin."

I mean, by definition, a Christian believes God is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (everywhere), and omnibenevolent (all-good) -- am I wrong on this?

Yes.

Not all Christians believe in original sin. The Orthodox don't, and they will tell you everything else is a later invention and therefore false where they differ.

G-d is absolutely NOT omnibenevolent. Need Scriptures to prove the point?

Omniscience is not really stated in scripture, depending on how you use the term. Omnipotence is actually refuted by Scripture, which might be why you didn't include this trait? What is Scriptural is most powerful, as well as omnipresent.

If so, then why are we (humans) forever to be denied eternal life (or cast into eternal hell-fire if you prefer) simply because our forebears (Adam and Eve) "ate fruit" from a forbidden "tree"

I sure hope somebody else posted this already, but we AREN'T. That's the GOOD NEWS! Upon banishment from Eden, God immediately began enacting His plan of Salvation. The Bible can be seen as that plan unfolding, and being revealed to us, so we can follow it and partake of that very Blessing. Try reading it without being distracted from that focus, and see what you get ...

Nevermind the theory of evolution that suggests there may have been no common Adam and Eve ancestors who were ever alive at the same time in history at all, but let's just assume they really existed at the same time as the Bible says: why would God hold such an insignificant thing as "eating" from the wrong "tree" against humanity for all time?

We actually don't know what that particular sin was, but it's the same idea as the legend of Pandora's box. All evil was contained to that one locale. Because G-d is Faithful, He would NOT create a world w/o evil, simply because evil does in fact exist.

He had the perfect plan to contain it in a dormant state. such condition WILL be restored, even if no other person shares it except Jesus. This is why Saints are important! Every single soul that is Saved is an amazing testimony to G-d's glory and goodness, having accomplished something against all odds.

Yet God still chooses to hold it against us all for all time, why?

I mean, isn't that the reason we supposedly need to accept Jesus as our Savior, because of original sin? Because no matter how good we are in our lives we are forever "tainted" because of an ignorant choice made by our forebears?

Nope. We are Judged because of our OWN sin. We also have the capacity to "judge ourselves," via confession of sin to G-d. This really means agreeing with Him about it. And He is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins! It sure took me a LOT of studying to comprehend that ...

What makes us so sure God really cares about us at all? Maybe he just did his "magic" at the beginning of time with the creation of the universe and has been completely hands off ever since. That's a position I could almost respect.

May I suggest you're not ready to discuss worship? And not to change the subject, but the Founding Fathers of the US recognized G-d cared about them. Not in some philosophical way, but because of personal experience. So that shoots your idea in the foot, as well as the idea they were Deists. Any born again Christian has at least some of this first-hand experience. Many of us here have TONS!

And again, G-d didn't "wait until 200 years ago to send a Savior." there's lots to this stuff you just don't know. Explore it and you might find out like I did, that G-d is perfect. That's why I fell in Love with Him.

 

[drich0150]

"Original Sin" is not a doctrine that originates from scripture, although the precepts used to define this doctrine are found in the pages of the bible, the bible itself does not teach this doctrine specifically.

This means this concept is just another example of a religious view. (man's attempt to label or understand the nature of God) Although the doctrine of "Original Sin" can be used to point those who seek God in the right direction. (From the view point of a few very specific denominations)

The Doctrine of Original Sin does not do a good job covering the questions you have pointed out. That being the case, I would say you have found issue with a doctrine of man, rather than an actual contradiction in the true nature of God.

 

[ebia]

It doesn't take the bible to tell you that poor human choices perpetuate and escalate through the generations.

 

[LAGC]

Nope. We are Judged because of our OWN sin. We also have the capacity to "judge ourselves," via confession of sin to G-d. This really means agreeing with Him about it. And He is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins! It sure took me a LOT of studying to comprehend that ...

I guess that begs a different question. Why would an all-powerful deity care about such petty things as whether or not we lied or coveted another man's wife? I can see humans being rightly concerned about such things, but why would God care one way or another? It just seems like so much of the Bible is just humans trying to assign human characteristics to God, when in reality, such a powerful God would have to be far beyond human comprehension. How can you even attempt to describe such awesomeness in words?

And not to change the subject, but the Founding Fathers of the US recognized G-d cared about them. Not in some philosophical way, but because of personal experience. So that shoots your idea in the foot, as well as the idea they were Deists.

Really? How do you figure? Everything I've read about most of the Founding Fathers paints them as hard-core Deists who had little use for Christianity: Our Founding Fathers Were NOT Christians

 

[LAGC]

It doesn't take the bible to tell you that poor human choices perpetuate and escalate through the generations.

I wonder though, how much has really changed since homo sapiens came onto the scene 200,000 years ago? Do you not think our ancient ancestors made some really lousy choices, just as many do today? I can't imagine there was any less "sinning" going on, as human nature hasn't really fundamentally changed.

I imagine there were still murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and any other bad thing you can think of, even back then, before language was even developed, let alone codified into written laws.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

I guess that begs a different question. Why would an all-powerful deity care about such petty things as whether or not we lied or coveted another man's wife? I can see humans being rightly concerned about such things, but why would God care one way or another? It just seems like so much of the Bible is just humans trying to assign human characteristics to God, when in reality, such a powerful God would have to be far beyond human comprehension. How can you even attempt to describe such awesomeness in words?

At least from a Christian viewpoint, He couldn't be called God if He wasn't concerned about how we treat one another. St. John, in his first epistle says "God is love", this is a fundamental statement about the Christian understanding about God. His primary "characteristic" isn't omnipotence, but love.

Here is how one of the Eastern Fathers, St. Isaac of Nineveh, states it:

"In love did God bring the world into existence; in love is God going to bring it to that wondrous transformed state, and in love will the world be swallowed up in the great mystery of the One who has performed all these things; in love will the whole course of the governance of creation be finally comprised."

The conception of the Deity in the Christian religion isn't that of a supremely powerful entity far beyond the pale of creaturely existence, but of a caring Father who, in compassion, reveals Himself in Jesus as One of unconditional love. Or at least, the Christian view should be this.

I'm no expert on Karl Barth, but in what little cursory study I have done I am familiar with Barth's attempt at distinguishing between "Personal Revelation" and "Propositional Revelation"; namely that God's means of revealing Himself is not propositional, but personal. That is, apart from God's own self-unveiling, God cannot be known; thus human language and propositions about God cannot be said to be identical with God's own self-unveiling. God's fullness of His unveiling is found in the Person of Jesus, and therefore to know what God is like and how God is must be found in the person and activity of Jesus of Nazareth. It is not wrong to speak of God as omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibevolent, immutable, impassible (etc) insomuch as these must be understood as pale philosophical terms that cannot say what God Himself has said in Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh.

Which is to say, God's Self, as He truly is, must be located in what God Himself has said and done, and the locus of that is in Jesus. Jesus is God's Logos, the Word; the Icon or Image of God. Both Johanine and Pauline theology in the New Testament points fairly emphatically to this point, so much so that in John's Gospel the Evangelist has Jesus saying, "Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father," and "I and the Father are one,". The consistent theme in John's Gospel is God's unique self-unveiling of Himself in God's Son, Jesus, who is the Word, the One whom God has sent, the One who makes the Father known, etc. Pauline theology likewise emphasizes that Jesus is "the image of the invisible God" and "in Him is the fullness of Divinity in bodily form"; even in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the author begins by saying that while God has spoken through various means in the past (namely, the Patriarchs and Prophets etc) God has, "in these last days" spoken through His Son, whom the author calls "the image of God's Hypostasis".

Christian theology, therefore, ought to begin in and with Jesus, and therefore anything that should be said about God must begin with Jesus. Thus, a supreme being or entity that is unconcerned and aloof from the affairs of the creaturely world cannot be, in Christian theology, called "God". It may be a truly remarkable being, a truly massive creature, but it cannot be called God. Since God, in Christian religion, is the One who has made Himself known in Jesus of Nazareth.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[solarwave]

I don't agree with original sin in spiritual sense or as something you can be judged for. It makes no sense.

 

[razeontherock]

I guess that begs a different question. Why would an all-powerful deity care about such petty things as whether or not we lied or coveted another man's wife? I can see humans being rightly concerned about such things, but why would God care one way or another? It just seems like so much of the Bible is just humans trying to assign human characteristics to God, when in reality, such a powerful God would have to be far beyond human comprehension. How can you even attempt to describe such awesomeness in words?

I recognize and appreciate the respect you're showing here. Be diligent to preserve that during your search, and it will serve you well! Would you like Scripture expressing the sentiment you express here?

Bottom line answer to your question is, He LOVES us. Incredible, isn't it? Hasn't really "sunk in" to me either; not the way it should.

The significant part of the conflict you state, is that He has involved Himself in our affairs. This is perhaps the most recognizable ramification of the Incarnation ...

IOW, this is what one might call a "good point." I encourage you to explore this one in depth before moving on.

Really? How do you figure? Everything I've read about most of the Founding Fathers paints them as hard-core Deists who had little use for Christianity: Our Founding Fathers Were NOT Christians

Key words being "read about." Why settle for second hand info when you can go direct to the source? Every County maintains a law library, and contains ALL the records of Congressional meetings from the beginning. You can read what they said themselves, and avoid the malicious re-write of history that is so horribly pervasive now.

As drich pointed out to you, they also took issue with religious institution and doctrine of man; but they knew His Power well, in very personal fashion. This completely contradicts any distinction we can make with Deism. While it wasn't codified so we can't recognize it or label anyone as being in the camp, the lone distinction is no interaction from the Divine. This flies in the face of what they were about, including the biggest atheists of the bunch, the doubting Thomases Jefferson and Paine.

 

[E.C.]

A quick note about Original Sin...

Original sin says that not only does mankind suffer from the effects of Adam and Eve (i.e. death, disease, hunger, pestilence, natural disasters, etc) but that all of humanity after Adam and Eve is responsible for their sin. In other words, not only do we have dirty laundry from their sin, but no matter how much cleaning we do there will always be a stain upon it that will never get out (or to use the words of the original poster, "our lives we are forever 'tainted' because of an ignorant choice")

Not all Christians believe this. About 90% of Western Christian, Protestantism and Catholicism, believe something along these lines which is how we get things such as Purgatory in Catholicism.

But thankfully there is something known as "Ancestral Sin". Ancestral Sin is held within Eastern Christianity and states that yes, humanity suffers from the effects of sin, but we are not responsible for it. To use the laundry analogy, that proverbial stain will not exist and the laundry will actually be able to get cleaned. Metaphorically speaking that is what Christianity is about: to become Christ-like and to keep one's laundry clean.


So, why did Adam and Eve sin in the first place? Because God gave them free will, they gave into temptation and they sinned. The next natural question would be what can we do about it? The answer: to follow Christ and to become Christ-like.

The reoccurring question seems to be "why does God care?" Because for some strange reason He loves us.

 

[ebia]

I wonder though, how much has really changed since homo sapiens came onto the scene 200,000 years ago? Do you not think our ancient ancestors made some really lousy choices, just as many do today? I can't imagine there was any less "sinning" going on, as human nature hasn't really fundamentally changed.

I imagine there were still murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and any other bad thing you can think of, even back then, before language was even developed, let alone codified into written laws.

I'm sure there were. I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[bling]

One thing I've never quite understood about Christianity is the concept of "original sin."

I mean, by definition, a Christian believes God is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (everywhere), and omnibenevolent (all-good) -- am I wrong on this?

If so, then why are we (humans) forever to be denied eternal life (or cast into eternal hell-fire if you prefer) simply because our forebears (Adam and Eve) "ate fruit" from a forbidden "tree" at the behest of a "talking snake"?

Nevermind the theory of evolution that suggests there may have been no common Adam and Eve ancestors who were ever alive at the same time in history at all, but let's just assume they really existed at the same time as the Bible says: why would God hold such an insignificant thing as "eating" from the wrong "tree" against humanity for all time? I mean, God designed them right? And God knows everything right? So truly he knew they were going to "eat" the "forbidden fruit" before he even told them not to! Yet God still chooses to hold it against us all for all time, why?

I mean, isn't that the reason we supposedly need to accept Jesus as our Savior, because of original sin? Because no matter how good we are in our lives we are forever "tainted" because of an ignorant choice made by our forebears? Does that seem very compassionate or omnibenevolent to you?

I mean, if God is so great and all-powerful and all-knowing and everything, why the games? Isn't it quite petty and silly for such a powerful being to concern himself with such trivialities? Why would an all-powerful God care whether or not his lowly creations paid homage to Him through prayer and worship? Isn't that kind of conceited? Isn't God above such petty human characteristics?

What makes us so sure God really cares about us at all? Maybe he just did his "magic" at the beginning of time with the creation of the universe and has been completely hands off ever since. That's a position I could almost respect. But this idea that God let life evolve on this planet for billions of years and only 2000 years ago decided to send a "Savior" down to "save us" from this "original sin" and has been mysteriously absent ever since.

I don't know. It just doesn't make much sense.

What you describe does not make any sense to me either, but what you describe is not what happened in the story (you can believe it to be just a story).

You are assuming the wrong objectives, so that draws you to the wrong conclusions.

God is not trying to get us to do something (worship Him), but is trying to give us the most powerful force in all universes. The force that compels even God to do all He does. That force is Godly type Love and that force is God because God is Love. We are not talking about some human definition of Love, but God’s definition defined by Christ’s words and deeds. The problem is God cannot do some things and the one big thing is force Godly type Love on us (that would be a robotic type Love or a love at gun point). God has made it as simple as possible for us to obtain this Love, just requiring adult maturity and the proper acceptance of the gift. (There is not great hop to jump through or some great knowledge to obtain.)

Yes, there was the first sin, but SIN IS NOT THE PROBLEM. Our objective is not: “Never sin”. All mature adult sin. Our objective is to obtain Godly type Love (accept the gift) so we can “Love God and others with all our heart, soul, mind and energy.” Sin actually has purpose in that after sinning we feel the burden of our actions that have hurt others. In seek relieve from that burden we can seek forgiveness from God who is wanting so willingly to forgive us, because the correct acceptance of God’s forgiveness is accepting God’s mercy, grace, charity and/or Love). Unfortunately, accepting God’s forgiveness is the easiest way for humans to accept God’s Love.

Back to the A&E story:

Prior to sinning Adam and Eve would have had a wonderful strong, “obedient child to wonderful gracious parent type love” for God, but would not need an unconditional undeserving type Love, since they had done nothing wrong and God as a good parent had a requirement to care for them. Accepting God’s Love as unconditional, sacrificial and undeserving Love would be an act of humility for Adam and Eve, but since they had done nothing wrong up to that point, they did not need to be humble. Why would they correctly accept God’s Love and give up at least some of their egos?

Adam and Eve are our best all human representatives and they could not fulfill their earthly objective in the Garden (correctly accept Godly type love) and without Godly type Love they cannot obey. So even though God wants all humans to be in a Garden type situation it is best for man to sin and be outside the Garden so man can fulfill his objective. The Garden is a wonderful place, but it is a lousy place for humans to fulfill their objective which we can see (and A&E could see) thanks to Adam and Eve time in the garden. There is a ton of other stuff to learn from this story, also.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I guess that begs a different question. Why would an all-powerful deity care about such petty things as whether or not we lied or coveted another man's wife? I can see humans being rightly concerned about such things, but why would God care one way or another? It just seems like so much of the Bible is just humans trying to assign human characteristics to God, when in reality, such a powerful God would have to be far beyond human comprehension. How can you even attempt to describe such awesomeness in words?

The 'original' sin didn't occur in the garden of Eden, but in heaven when the one known as Lucifer rebelled against God. God had created Lucifer to be his 'loved one', or 'special angel'; and although a spirit being, was the actual precursor of the human wife. The rebellion of Eve was a reinactment of Lucifer's rebellion. Humans were created unable to resist sin. The eating of the fruit was preplanned by God. Eve was powerless to resist the Devil's temptation, and Adam was powerless to resist Eve's insistence that he also sin. God cares about 'adultery' because that's how this whole thing started. Lucifer coveted, lied, stole, committed spiritual adultery, murdered (would cause the death of billions of humans), dishonored the 'parent' that created 'her'. God then fashioned the commandments based on the principle offenses of Lucifer, and his plan of redemption that would restore the heavenly 'Eden' that was lost because of the rebellion. God the Father will not 'remarry' but will provide a 'helpmeet' for his son Jesus Christ, in the form of the Church, composed of only those humans he chooses. God has separated mankind into two groups: one he calls 'vessels of honour', that will become the Bride, and the friends, of Christ. The rest are vessels of 'dishonour', that will, like chamberpots, be used once then destroyed, although some scriptures indicate salvation for others of 'every nation, kindred, and tongue'. Ezekiel also indicates that the 'whole house of Israel' will be resurrected and receive God's spirit at some future time, probably during the millenial rule of Christ.

 

[elopez]

One thing I've never quite understood about Christianity is the concept of "original sin."

I mean, by definition, a Christian believes God is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (everywhere), and omnibenevolent (all-good) -- am I wrong on this?

If so, then why are we (humans) forever to be denied eternal life (or cast into eternal hell-fire if you prefer) simply because our forebears (Adam and Eve) "ate fruit" from a forbidden "tree" at the behest of a "talking snake"?

One's damnation is not as simple as you make it out to be. While it is not our first parent's original sin that condemns us, meaning that humanity does not inherit the guilt of original sin, we do inherit the effects it has on our human nature that makes us bias towards sin. In other words, we are effected by the Fall, not held responsible for it.

Nevermind the theory of evolution that suggests there may have been no common Adam and Eve ancestors who were ever alive at the same time in history at all, but let's just assume they really existed at the same time as the Bible says: why would God hold such an insignificant thing as "eating" from the wrong "tree" against humanity for all time? I mean, God designed them right? And God knows everything right? So truly he knew they were going to "eat" the "forbidden fruit" before he even told them not to! Yet God still chooses to hold it against us all for all time, why?

The Bible does not say at what point in history Adam and Eve were alive or in the Garden, and any such notion is mere speculation which more than likely consists of quoting scripture out of context. God does not hold humanity responsible for the original sin of Adam and Eve. There are laws and commands that are known as absolute, meaning that God expects humanity to follow them (don't commit murder, etc), and there are also laws and commands that God gives to specific individuals in specific situations such as with Noah and the building of the ark. God's command for Noah to build an ark doesn't apply to the rest of humanity just as the command in the Garden was specifically for the first couple. So if humanity is not subject to follow these specific commands, then they cannot be subject to being held accountable for them in any way possible.

The act of disobeying God is not as insignificant as you put it either. That is like asking, "Why do people go to jail for moving a lever?" A person who shots another, in a simplistic sense, is just moving a piece of metal, yet we know there is so much more behind such an act than just that. Eating of the tree would cause death, and Adam and Eve were aware of that consequence, so essentially they were meddling with death.

I mean, isn't that the reason we supposedly need to accept Jesus as our Savior, because of original sin? Because no matter how good we are in our lives we are forever "tainted" because of an ignorant choice made by our forebears? Does that seem very compassionate or omnibenevolent to you?

Original sin simply put is that hereditary sin that is passed onto each generation of man. However it differs from a normal sin as in a sin that is personally committed, as this sin is transfused by natural hereditary. What this means is that every man is a sinner and all men will continue to sin because that is his real and true desire, just at different degrees. Now it would not be very compassionate or benevolent if and only if God left all of humanity in this state tainted with sin, however this is not the case as God aids humanity in this respect so that we are not as biased to sin but rather love and follow Him.

I mean, if God is so great and all-powerful and all-knowing and everything, why the games? Isn't it quite petty and silly for such a powerful being to concern himself with such trivialities? Why would an all-powerful God care whether or not his lowly creations paid homage to Him through prayer and worship? Isn't that kind of conceited? Isn't God above such petty human characteristics?

I can see it as conceited of God to want worship from man only if God is to gain something. So I ask what is there for God to gain through worship and prayer that He already doesn't poses? God is glorified indefinitely by virtue of existence! He doesn't need man to worship or praise him. Such acts are thus not present for God's sake rather for the sake of man, as a way to identify with his Creator.

What makes us so sure God really cares about us at all? Maybe he just did his "magic" at the beginning of time with the creation of the universe and has been completely hands off ever since. That's a position I could almost respect. But this idea that God let life evolve on this planet for billions of years and only 2000 years ago decided to send a "Savior" down to "save us" from this "original sin" and has been mysteriously absent ever since.

I don't know. It just doesn't make much sense.

The position you describe of an "off hand's creator" is known as deism, to which I also respect but not enough to respect it intellectually. We know from experience that a man who has a child, then abandons his child and leaves him on his own with the mother is not a very loving or compassionate father. Suggesting that the Creator of the universe would do this may be probable and "respectable," but it is not by far more compassionate or loving than the Christian theistic idea of God whom is considered a personal Creator.

 

[callmeMurph]

"Original Sin" is not a doctrine that originates from scripture, although the precepts used to define this doctrine are found in the pages of the bible, the bible itself does not teach this doctrine specifically.

This means this concept is just another example of a religious view. (man's attempt to label or understand the nature of God) Although the doctrine of "Original Sin" can be used to point those who seek God in the right direction. (From the view point of a few very specific denominations)

The Doctrine of Original Sin does not do a good job covering the questions you have pointed out. That being the case, I would say you have found issue with a doctrine of man, rather than an actual contradiction in the true nature of God.

What he said.

 

[Jpark]

It should be substitution (world was cursed in Adam's place) to substitution (Jesus died in the place of the world), not retribution (world is responsible for the sin of Adam) to substitution (Jesus died in the place of the world).

 

[salida]

I mean, by definition, a Christian believes God is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (everywhere), and omnibenevolent (all-good) -- am I wrong on this? True.
If so, then why are we (humans) forever to be denied eternal life (or cast into eternal hell-fire if you prefer) simply because our forebears (Adam and Eve) "ate fruit" from a forbidden "tree" at the behest of a "talking snake"?
Because God's standard is too high without Christ.
Are you a good person? www.livingwaters.com/good/
Disobeying God is very serious-the more important the person your offending the bigger the punishment. God is the highest.
Nevermind the theory of evolution that suggests there may have been no common Adam and Eve ancestors who were ever alive at the same time in history at all. Hmm, read A Man Called Adam by Hugo Ross-he is a scientist who genetically traces us back to Adam and Eve. (I think this is the title or its something similiar.
......but let's just assume they really existed at the same time as the Bible says: why would God hold such an insignificant thing as "eating" from the wrong "tree" against humanity for all time? I mean, God designed them right? And God knows everything right? So truly he knew they were going to "eat" the "forbidden fruit" before he even told them not to! Yet God still chooses to hold it against us all for all time, why? God won't override freewill-again disobeying God is serious.
I mean, isn't that the reason we supposedly need to accept Jesus as our Savior, because of original sin? Because no matter how good we are in our lives we are forever "tainted" because of an ignorant choice made by our forebears? Does that seem very compassionate or omnibenevolent to you? Its not a matter of being good or bad natured-but accepting Christ as your savior because Gods standards are too high.
I mean, if God is so great and all-powerful and all-knowing and everything, why the games? Isn't it quite petty and silly for such a powerful being to concern himself with such trivialities? Why would an all-powerful God care whether or not his lowly creations paid homage to Him through prayer and worship? Isn't that kind of conceited? Isn't God above such petty human characteristics? He loves us and therefore cares.
1 John 4:8- God is Love
What makes us so sure God really cares about us at all? Maybe he just did his "magic" at the beginning of time with the creation of the universe and has been completely hands off ever since. That's a position I could almost respect. But this idea that God let life evolve on this planet for billions of years and only 2000 years ago decided to send a "Savior" down to "save us" from this "original sin" and has been mysteriously absent ever since.
Billions of years?-many scientists don't believe this.
http://creation.com/who-really-is-the-god-of-genesis
http://www.godandscience.org/love/sld045.html
Science supports Genesis
http://josephmastropaolo.com/index.html
A Summary of Evidence for Literal 24-hr Creation Days in Genesis 1.
http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/Gendays.htm

I don't know. It just doesn't make much sense.[/quote]