The Problem(s) with Original Sin

Someone refute this long dissertation I wrote about the inconsistencies with original sin: I want to get some legit feedback and the fags at /his/ are taking too long. pastebin.com/UhphmYUH

TL;DR Christianity claims by proxy that the very fundamental nature of the universe was different before the Fall, meaning any arguments made for or against it are illegitimate which invalidates the entire religion. Also the claims themselves are of a universe whose chemical and biological laws were so radically different that human biology was completely inconsistent with what it is now; not only are such claims bold, but they are completely irrational and unverifiable.

Other urls found in this thread:

therendleshamforestincident.com/The_Decoded_Binary_Code.php
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Original sin is being ashamed of your skin.

This is a repercussion of it, and is something I address.

You might
know of
the original sin

Original sin is not scriptural and comes from garbage churches

It's in the Bible. I put references to it in the pastebin.

Pic related

The apple was an analogy for sex. Eve cheated on Adam, that was the sin.

Is jew bullshit to control the masses, not worth looking to much on it.

Meaningless. The sin was committed. The argument is from the nature of the universe which ultimately needed not to have experienced causality before the fall denoting that God may not even have exited or that humans actually created God.

I've been looking for original sin.
One with a twist and a bit of a spin,
cus I've done all the old ones 'til they've all been done in
now I'm just looking, and I'm gone with the wind
endlessly searching for original sin

I've been looking for the ultimate crime
infinite victims, infinitesimal time
and I'm so very guilty for no reason or rhyme
endlessly searching, and killing some time
endlessly looking for the ultimate crime

Original sin is nonsense. The Dragon was turning humans from animals into moral agents, therefore they entered a state of dissonance between their instincts and morality.

If dolphins were intelligent and then visited by a higher intelligence that made them aware of good and evil, they would still have the instinctual drive to rape. This is sin. Men are animals. Common theology is bull shit.

I'll add that in biblical numerics, when 3 numbers are repeated it represents the ideal form of that number. 6 is the number of man and 666 is therefore the ideal man. The mystery of sin is that sin is a means to an end. The broken state of man has led to invention, war for resources on a grand scale, and it will culminate in its ultimate product.

One last thing I forgot to add. The Dragon didn't lie about becoming as gods. He just left out that it would take thousands of years to achieve that status. The man of sin declares himself a god achieving the promise.

I get this, but I'm making a theological argument against Christianity. I'm not Christian. I wanted to see if someone, preferably Catholic, could refute the claims.

Original sin is the tool the left picked up from the cuckright to manipulate and subvert innocent people into being ashamed of their country, people, and self

Oh yeah, sorry. I just see original sin through the lens of evolutionary psychology. I take a quasi-ancient aliens view to this whole thing. I find the narrative of man becoming more than its original animal state leading to the arc of civilization fascinating. I am hoping transhumanism proves my theory in my lifetime.

I saw this one day and it tripped me out too.

therendleshamforestincident.com/The_Decoded_Binary_Code.php

I can't vouch for whether it's legitimate or not but I've heard the guys involved fought for their medical records to be released and they apparently did receive radiation damage.

hurrrrr....here is my dissertation....about original sin. o rly?

there is a lot of purposeful ambiguity in gen 2&3

I think you need to apply a different way of thinking of how adam and eve where when originally created and original sin.

In our fallen world we understand moral, logical, emotional, psychological, etc concepts.

you have to attack pre-fall man as lacking all this.

if you lack all these concepts, you are an animal.


you should look at gen 2&3 as God creating a pet that would ultimately become a being capable of moral action and capable of choosing him. because he is a jealous & righteous God, he loves us so much to want us to draw near to him but can not leave any immoral action unpunished. He sends his son who willingly takes the punishment meant for us, so that we can have relationship with him.

No. Adam's lineage getting kicked out of Eden doesn't mean or even imply that humans are born with original sin. You're reading too much into Genesis 3:16-19 and not actually looking at the context. Also:

"The soul who sins dies. The son won't bear the punishment of his father's sin and the father won't bear the punishment of his son's sin. The righteous deeds of that righteous person will be attributed to him, while the wicked deeds of the wicked person will be charged against him. " - Ezekiel 18:20

Look, I'm going by what the largest Christian denomination in the world teaches. What you are saying is not what catholics teach.

Holy shit I can't believe I read that. This is why everyone religious hates atheists. You don't even understand a single fucking thing about religion. You hear some secularized version of something religious, do 5 minutes of reading and think you've cracked the code. People have spent their entire fucking lives studying this shit and your dumb ass comes in here acting like your opinion matters?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

refute it then. I was educated in a Catholic school, this is what they taught me. What's wrong with it.

The nature of man =/= the fundamental nature of the universe.

If the fundamental nature of the universe changes, that's perfectly acceptable according to Catholic dogma, since only the nature of God must by necessity stay the same.

Either way, Genesis is not necessarily to be taken in the literal sense.

You know, also has a point in that there is a lot of UM WELL WHY DIDN'T JESUS TELL US ABOUT ATOMS, CHECKMATE CHRISTIANS in your original post that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of religion.

>Look, I'm going by what the largest Christian denomination in the world teaches. What you are saying is not what catholics teach.
Argumentum ad populum. The Catholic Church is not even close to to correct on tons of doctrinal issues. Much of what they teach doesn't come from the Old Testament (which is Hebrew/Judaic and has more authority and age than they do), nor does it come from the New Testament.

So, your argument is with the Catholic Church and not Christianity. They do not represent all of Christianity, and there are many denominations that firmly believe they are the beast of Revelation.

Most of their teachings come from papal bulls and church fathers and have nothing to do with the Hebrew or Greek scriptures.

Either way, original sin is not in the bible.

>the church of St. Jesus of Townsville, USA is the TRUE church

Protcucks, not even once

I really don't understand here. I cited literal teaching from the church. We didn't experience lust. This is dogma. This causes problems. Just tell me why the conclusions I have drawn from this are wrong. What "fundamental misunderstanding" is there?

"All I wanted was a piece of the night, it never had to get so dark."

Thanks user, I always appreciate Meat loaf references.

Life is short, if someone wants to spend their entire life devoted to a book about desert cloud fairies that's their business however if I was organizing a hierarchical cult the notion of original sin is intriguing. My guess is to keep the herd humble and hard working to serve their "lord". Feudalism is the longest standing form of governance and some would argue we just live under crypto-feudalism today and I would argue Abrahamic cloud fairies books - Judaism - Christnaity and finally Islam with holy war and holy rape are really just a chronological history of the evolution of feudalism.

I'm not a Protestant either, fagola.

Either way, original sin is not in the bible, and is the Catholic equivalent of fucking Thetans. It's cult mentality to make you feel inherently guilty.

It's not argumentum ad populum, it's a way to begin discourse that will ultimately pertain to the largest number of people. You have address dogma and make arguments from within dogma to disprove it. You will not convince a catholic with protestant theology.

Also if there isn't original sin, why would we need a redeemer to begin with. Re-deem. Bring back. Meaning something was lost. Meaning all humans lack a fundamental communion with god.

Or do you just disagree with calling Jesus a redeemer.

Because you're arguing that an event that the Church claims is supernatural is impossible on the basis that it couldn't happen in a naturalistic world (i.e. a world where there is no supernatural). Thus your conclusion is nothing but your premise.

original sin and karma
use same logic like this tale

>a Luciferian calling me a bad person

Yes, but again, the you must concede, then, that the fundamental nature of the universe, all laws, were different before the fall. Supernatural if you like, it doesn't really mean anything. It's just very, very big to claim that the laws of physics didn't exist before original sin.

Do you want me to brake it down to a metaphor, so you can play the role of a autist, and go full metaphor on all thy commandments and childern fables user?

I disagree, but suppose for argument's sake that the laws of the universe did change. So what?

Like you get this is what I'm arguing here, right? That these claims are some of the biggest in the entire religion? If not THE biggest?

Like at the end I allude to your point, that a supernatural nature existed prior to the fall and that we can no longer recognize it. This is a gigantic claim.

I'm saying that to me, and many people, these claims are illegitimate. I understand that in the end it requires faith to believe in them, but the amount of faith to believe, but when the entirety of reality contradicts the claims you make, that faith is very difficult to latch on to.

your problem is catholicism isnt christian

the only faith needed in christianity is the faith that Jesus was raised from the dead and is God in human form.

If the bible conflicted with science i would have thrown it out long ago.

>Also if there isn't original sin, why would we need a redeemer to begin with. Re-deem. Bring back. Meaning something was lost. Meaning all humans lack a fundamental communion with god. Or do you just disagree with calling Jesus a redeemer.

We need a redeemer because we've all sinned of our own accord. Everyone. This has nothing to do with an "original sin" you were born with, but the choices you've made and the sins you've done yourself.

Also, Jesus didn't die to "absolve" our sins. He died on Passover, as the Passover lamb of God. The first born male, a lamb without blemish (sin). By studying Leviticus, you'll see that the Passover sacrifice was never a sin offering. It was a blood covering that caused the angel of death to "pass over" you and your household. Accepting the blood covering of Christ acts as a garment of light that hides your sins from God.

You'll probably just say "hey that's not a mainstream church teaching", but I don't really care. That's what the book says, and it's much clearer in Hebrew than in English.

Right, the largest theological christian institution with the oldest verifiable records on the matter (in terms of institutionality, I am aware of other sects in the centuries just after christ). yea that one.
You attack the root and the leaves die off.

>Right, the largest theological christian institution with the oldest verifiable records on the matter (in terms of institutionality, I am aware of other sects in the centuries just after christ). yea that one.
>You attack the root and the leaves die off.

protestantism is not a leave of catholicism: it is the turning back to Biblical Christianity.

Catholicism directly conflicts with commandments from the Bible.

Answer And I say again, the nature of man =/= the nature of the universe.

>hurr u disagree wit mah dogmas u lucifer
k

Catholics have fallen for a Muslim tier deception, and are intellectual equivalents to Mehmet. Trying reading the bible sometime.

But what the fuck? If all of humanity was sinful by default, then why even create the garden? Why even do anything? You're saying that God created humanity inherently sinful and inherently dependent on him. That sounds absolutely disgusting.

This. A thousand times this. Anyone who has studied the Bible knows original sin is a load of bunk based on passages taken completely out of context.

Hey can somebody tell me what Catholicism's view on predestination is?

>Protcucks rewrite the Bible to better reflect their beliefs
>Y'all oughta read the BAAHBLE, son, but MAH BAAHBLE

Against predestination, very pro-free will.

If you read it, I drew conclusions. Address the conclusions.

>man couldnt die
>fire couldnt harm man
>cells couldnt die
>cells need energy
>if cells couldn't die they had infinite energy

therfore, the nature of energy before the fall was different.

please just tell me why this is wrong. what's the flaw. that's all I'm asking for.

Catholicism is not God's church and it never was, no matter how old they are or who they claim their first bishop was.

Jesus wasn't a Catholic. He was a Hebrew. The Old Testament is a lot older than the Catholic Church. Like...waaay older. So you should derive your authority from that, not the fagola church of Satan.

"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"

"there is not one righteous, no not one"

Poor analogy then.

if you want to attack Christianity, attack the bible.

if you want to attack catholicism, attack their traditions and catechism

Then you can't fucking justify jesus either can you? Like all you people is run around in circles. Just address the points I've made and refute them. How can you convince a Catholic he or she is wrong when they accept dogma different from yours? You won't get anywhere. You need to refute dogma based on dogma.

Again, poor analogy. I know Catholicism because I was taught Catholicism. I don't know protestant theology so I'm not attacking protestant theology.

get them to admit that the Catholic churches traditions and ceremonies conflict with the Bible

Again, you're very autistically ignoring what I've been saying this whole time and trying to plough on. The idea is that man pre-fall lived in the real presence of God, thus SUPERNATURAL. You're taking it as a given that there is no such thing as the supernatural, and arguing that because the supernatural is impossible, the supernatural is impossible. Totally circular.

On what authority is Protestantism based?

Biblical Christianity teaches salvation by grace through faith alone.

It is the only religion in the entire history of humanity to teach this except Judaism.

I went to catholic school. Teachers and theologians use the church fathers as means of corroboration to back up their (and the church's) interpretations.

Your dissertation was pretty terrible and you draw all sorts of dumb conclusions about very cosmic things from a materialistic human perspective.

You're like someone in Platos cave going on and on about what the shadow puppets emotions are.

The apple could represent many different things. I think of genesis of the beginning of a process, whereby the purity of god separated itself from itself in order to manifest a creation.

Original sin was the break off point, so to speak, whereby the creation fully became independent from God in a way, like the umbilical cord being cut. Jesus came and began to reverse that process, where Humanity is again making it's journey back to unifications with the Godhead.

"And call no man on earth Father, as you have one Father and He is in heaven."

-Jesus Christ

One of the many blasphemous traditions of the catholic church

Yes, and because it was supernatural, reality was different. I get it was supernatural. I understand that humanity was in full communion with God. Based on the dogma, supernatural reality is possible. But this reality is fundamentally different. It is not the same as a natural reality. Right? Supernatural =/= natural?

There was no problem with God physically walking in the garden with adam and eve.

This is where the Christian distinction between the universal and the particular comes in. The universal laws of physics were obviously the same, but in the particular case of humans there was a supernatural force at work. The supernatural is, by its very nature, not natural.

>Then you can't fucking justify jesus either can you?
Yes, I can. It's difficult though when you flip your shit at any counter-argument that doesn't apply to Catholic dogma. I am not a Catholic. I study the Torah, Prophets, Psalms, and the New Testament. The Torah, Prophets, and Psalms are hundreds and hundreds of years older than the Catholic church, so no, I don't care that the Catholic church came along and started making shit up. Their "papal infallibility vicar of Christ" horseshit is no different than Joseph Smith claiming he found Golden Plates in the fucking woods. They're just men. They derive their ENTIRE authority based on the Old Testament, since without the Old Testament, Jesus himself has no authority. We have manuscripts available for study that are 600 years older than the Catholic church, and so, we can very for ourselves whether they've gone off the mark or if doctrines originate with them or not. They are not "le oldest church", because Israel was once an ancient country that relied entirely on the Torah and God to be its ruler before they begged for King Saul. The Levitical priests were told to enforce the Torah. Jesus consistently, without fail, pointed to the Torah for Guidance and Salvation. So when the Catholic church says "no no no! the teachings of MEN will save you!" I can kindly tell them to fuck off, as should you.

>Y'all oughta read the BAAHBLE, son, but MAH BAAHBLE
The Old Testament is much older than your Satanic church. They derive the authority for their entire existence from it, yet they neglect 99% of what it teaches. I'm sorry you've been deceived. And I'm even sorrier it's made you so arrogant.

No, not in a supernatural reality. Just as there is no problem with breaking the laws of physics in a supernatural reality. I never said it couldn't happen. I said it was a bold claim.

carholics are fucking wrong. even christians recognize this faggot

>unironic Noachism

Hello Shlomo

no in this reality with no sin without breaking the laws of physics

So why aren't you just a Jew?

"and call no man on earth Father, as you have one Father and He is in heaven"

-Jesus Christ

I understand this man. I'm not Catholic. I don't agree with the Catholics. I am refuting catholic dogma. I accept that it is wrong. But I am seeking a means to refute it and effectively convince a Catholic based in their own teaching. I went to catholic school. I've said this many times. I have seen your arguments used. They don't work on catholics. I've tried.

I'm on your side man. I don't disagree that the Catholic church has huge doctrinal issues. That isn't a point of contention.

biblical Christians are the new Jews

We are Gods chosen people

"And I name you Bible, and upon this Bible I build my Bible"

-Things Jesus never said

>Catholic dogma btw, since it is generally speaking the most liberal in terms of accepting evolution and modern biology.
No!!!! Modern Catholics are trying to subvert evolution and modern biology .
Before fall we were immortal...and we were not living on planet earth...
>Humans had cells that did not undergo cell division as they do in modernity
wrong
>heaven is not in this universe .

>If all of humanity was sinful by default, then why even create the garden? Why even do anything? You're saying that God created humanity inherently sinful and inherently dependent on him.
First of all, I never said anything like that. God did not create people "inherently sinful." God created man with free will. God wants a loving relationship with his children, and you cannot have love without free will. God has also created a standard to ensure a harmonious kingdom of Heaven, and that means certain actions are not allowed. You can't have theft and murder in a utopia, for example. But at this point, let me make clear to you that Torah means "teaching, guidance, instruction, direction" and not "LAW." So when you sin, you really are neglecting and disregarding the teaching, not "breaking the law."

David, also, sinned all over the place. He cheated on his wife, had a son, and sent the husband of the woman he had an affair with to a war to die. David seriously fucked up, and God took away this son for punishment. But you know what? David is on record as God's favorite son. People fuck up. God knows this. David fucked up royally, but he repented, and never turned himself from God, and learned from his horrible mistake. He was "a man after my (God's) own heart."

God knows you are going to fuck up. He gave you free will, and many sins advance us in power, sex, money etc. They're irresistable. It's not that "God made them irresistable", they just are. Self-advancement is always forefront of the individuals mind. That's why he set an example of self-sacrifice, with a standard of perfection for us to always try and rise to, even though he knew we'd never make it. We're not "relying on Jesus" so much as taking a free gift on the condition that we continue to lift ourselves up when we fall.

on this rock i will build my church

Jesus talking to Peter.

this rock did did not refer to peter because peter was a pebble. the rock was a boulder refering to Jesus as the Christ

go read the greek

Wow, another genius with it all figured out. In case you guys haven't heard, Christianity became the the world's greatest religion by enslaving the masses and oppressing people, while simultaneously keeping them ignorant. Makes total sense, definitely grounded in historical fact.

So the old Jews are suddenly not chosen anymore because of the NT? Right. You clearly think the Old Testament is superior to the New Testament. You call the Church Christ founded on Peter evil. Why aren't you just a Jew?

also you cant expleain idealistic philosophy using materialistic methodology

Orthodox Seminarian Here:

Just so you know: Orthodoxy has a profoundly different theological understanding of Original sin than Western Christians.

Death, in particularly spiritual death, is the greatest consequence of Original sin. The redemption of mankind by Jesus (as both perfectly human and perfectly divine) has potentially redeemed all of creation....but to participate in that redemption you have to be a member of His Church

faith is entirely unverifiable, that's why it's not a scientific question.

not going to read your dissertation at all because you're asking a stupid fucking question

In French Pierre = Peter = a rock

But where in the Bible does it mention that all authority comes from the Bible? The Apostles never even had a Bible.

It's stupid.

Hey let me make people.
Hey they can do whatever they want.
Gonna put a tree right i front of them and tell them not to eat the fruit.
Oh shit they ate from the tree.
Im fucking pissed now even tho i put the tree there.

if baptism removes original sin, then why do we still die? checkmate, papists

>Noachism
Everything is a fucking label with you. I'm not a Noachide you retard. I read the scriptures and I follow Christ. Pull your head out of your ass.

>b-but if you recognize what christ taught u must be a talmud babby
no

Jesus is the church's foundation

Peter was not the rock. Go read that passage again.

Jesus was telling Peter that Jesus would build his Church on people recognizing Jesus as the Messiah. This is the rock Jesus speaks of.

Orthodox Seminarian Continued:
Just so you know, the early Church also believed that the world was profoundly different.

The mentioning of Adam and Eve "putting on themselves skins of animals" refers to our own human skins...

So what church are you in? You're NOT the first person to have your own set of theological beliefs, whatever they may be.

based user. ty for info

So again, why did we need Jesus if we already had a law? What did Jesus do for us that Mosaic Law didn't?

if sin is irresistible, how does that not count as an inclination? And what do you mean, "they just are"? What? What? God made the universe. Didn't he? God made us, didn't he?

Because Jews have thousands and thousands of rabbinical teachings that fuck up the entire teaching of God. It's the same thing—doctines of men. Also, Jews pretty openly reject the Messiah and believe he did not come.

God does not care what label you have or what clubhouse you're in—that's something only people care about. He cares that you make an effort to get to know him, through the means in which he revealed himself: the Torah, Prophets, Psalms, Writings, and Messiah.

Earth is not heaven. Our total goal in life is to go to heaven, which involves the process of removing original sin. We need to die in order to go to heaven because Earth is not God's kingdom

And also in your view how does Satan even play into anything? If sin "just is" then how could have Satan caused it?