Do babies go to hell if they die?

[underdawg]

Original sin according to the Bible everyone is born with. No matter how nice the baby may seem to be, it is guilty, and until the day comes that it can understand that it has this spiritual affliction and can ask forgiveness and have it taken away, then if death were to come, one would assume that this baby is banned from heaven and would be bound for hell just as surely as any murderer or thief that hasn't repented of his sins. How do others feel about this? Does God make exceptions for babies and the retarded? If dead babies go to heaven then the whole idea of original sin must also be abandoned.

[AlonzoMourning23]

In Catholicism unbaptized babies go to Limbo, baptised ones go to heaven.

If dead babies go to heaven then the whole idea of original sin must also be abandoned.


I don't see why. Original sin is not a personal sin and is not damning in and of itself. Though that is one of the reasons Catholics baptize babies, to get rid of that sin.

[underdawg]

I always thought all sins were damning. I was also curious to which passages of the Bible the Catholics use to take away sins of those who don't confess those sins themselves such a babies.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Baptism washes away sins. But all sins, while sins, are not going to damn you to hell.

1 peter 3:21
21 And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience — through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

[BoogyMan]

Original sin according to the Bible everyone is born with. No matter how nice the baby may seem to be, it is guilty, and until the day comes that it can understand that it has this spiritual affliction and can ask forgiveness and have it taken away, then if death were to come, one would assume that this baby is banned from heaven and would be bound for hell just as surely as any murderer or thief that hasn't repented of his sins.Â*Â*How do others feel about this? Does God make exceptions for babies and the retarded?Â*Â*If dead babies go to heaven then the whole idea of original sin must also be abandoned.


Original sin is a doctrine of men that is NOT taught in the bible.

2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Children in these verses and countless others are counted as innocent in the eyes of God and man is told to become as a little child, innocent.

[underdawg]

So does this mean that Jesus was contradicting the story of Genesis when it spoke of the original sin that was passed down through the generations? If little children are indeed innocent of this original sin then it is not passed down as Genesis would lead you to believe.

I didn't think the Bible taught that others could take sin away from someone else even a baby. Baptizing someone who is unaware like a baby is kinda like doing the same thing to someone who is asleep. I wouldn't think it would count.

[BoogyMan]

So does this mean that Jesus was contradicting the story of Genesis when it spoke of the original sin that was passed down through the generations?Â*Â*If little children are indeed innocent of this original sin then it is not passed down as Genesis would lead you to believe.Â*Â*

I didn't think the Bible taught that others could take sin away from someone else even a baby. Baptizing someone who is unaware like a baby is kinda like doing the same thing to someone who is asleep. I wouldn't think it would count.


How about a book, chapter, and verse so I can look that one up?

[AlonzoMourning23]

Original sin is a doctrine of men that is NOT taught in the bible.


It's a matter of interpretation:

Psalm 51:5
5Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.


Romans 5:12
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


Job 25:4

4 How then can a man be righteous before God?
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* How can one born of woman be pure?

Romans 3:9-19
9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
13"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."
14"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know."
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."
19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

[BoogyMan]

Romans 5:12
[quote]12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


First lets dispel the original sin idea:

Ezekiel 18:19-20

19Â*Â*Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20Â*Â*The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

This is pretty clear.

You quote Romans 5:12 where it simply says that because one man sinned, sin entered the world and sin has been committed by all men since.

I am not guilty of someone elses sin.Â*Â*It is that simple.Â*Â*I am to be held accountable for the sins which I commit and do not repent of.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Romans 3:9 says all are under sin, Job 25:4 says no one born of woman is pure, and romans 5:12 says all have sinned. It's kind of hard to imagine an infant sinning unless they were born that way.

It's certainly a debatable point but you have certain passages contradicting other passages.

But, Ezekiel, in context, does not even appear to refer to that concept. With adam and eve, the sin did not die with their death. The effects of that sin plague humanity to this day. So a passage that is referring to the passing on of sin within the family, and that says the sin dies with the person, does not seem to apply to that. If that passage applied to the story of genesis, then the effects of that action would not have been passed on through the generations.

[BoogyMan]

Romans 3:9 says all are under sin, Job 25:4 says no one born of woman is pure, and romans 5:12 says all have sinned. It's kind of hard to imagine an infant sinning unless they were born that way.

It's certainly a debatable point but you have certain passages contradicting other passages.

But, Ezekiel, in context, does not even appear to refer to that concept. With adam and eve, the sin did not die with their death. The effects of that sin plague humanity to this day. So a passage that is referring to the passing on of sin within the family, and that says the sin dies with the person, does not seem to apply to that. If that passage applied to the story of genesis, then the effects of that action would not have been passed on through the generations.


Ezekiel in context clearly points out that a man is not guilty of the sins of his father. I am not guilty of something I didn't do. Yes, all men are under sin as all men sin. It doesn't support the argument that original sin exists. Many texts point to the purity and innocence of children and men are told to become like children, innocent.

There is not contradiction there Zo, but you have to want to treat the passages in context and with honesty.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Your quote doesn't, but mine do. My whole point is that an argument can be made for either side. I'm not saying that I'm right or you're wrong, but that there is no definitive answer.

[BoogyMan]

Your quote doesn't, but mine do. My whole point is that an argument can be made for either side. I'm not saying that I'm right or you're wrong, but that there is no definitive answer.


Your quotes don't contradict Zo, even though it seems you desperately want them to, they just don't.

Original sin is repudiated throughout the NT in the teaching that man falls as a result of his own sin as Rom 5:12 very plainly teaches.

[AlonzoMourning23]

And yet inheritence of death from adam, and the punishment of his sin, is more in line with my quotes than yours. The bible even states all men were condemned for the actions of one, just as righteousness can spread beyond one:

Romans 5:18
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.


The cases you bring up are treated differently from that sin.

[BoogyMan]

Romans 3:9 says all are under sin, Job 25:4 says no one born of woman is pure, and romans 5:12 says all have sinned. It's kind of hard to imagine an infant sinning unless they were born that way.

It's certainly a debatable point but you have certain passages contradicting other passages.

But, Ezekiel, in context, does not even appear to refer to that concept. With adam and eve, the sin did not die with their death. The effects of that sin plague humanity to this day. So a passage that is referring to the passing on of sin within the family, and that says the sin dies with the person, does not seem to apply to that. If that passage applied to the story of genesis, then the effects of that action would not have been passed on through the generations.


Alonzo, I DONT have the passages contradicting, I have you refusing to see a simple point because you seem to WANT to believe that they contradict.

The very simple point is that all have sinned but Christ. All men have sinned and will sin, that is the whole point of those verses for which you are missing the point.

Ezekiel points out VERY clearly that a man is NOT responsible for the sins of his father or vice-versa.

[AlonzoMourning23]

And other passages point out that all of us have been effected by the original sin and are condemned for it. You simply refuse to see that there can be more than one interpretation. Romans even expressly states that we are all condemned for it.

The bible treats the original sin and the other sins differently.

[Danoz]

I find it interesting to watch certain christians quarrel over theology for the simple reason that they believe with the same dogmatism that the scriptures cannot be wrong, that their interpretation of the scriptures cannot be wrong too (I'm excluding alonzomourning23 here). Sorry that's very clumsy English, but you get the picture I'm sure. And it's not just this doctrine which presents a fundamental problem, it's the ridiculously shaky kludge theory of trinitarianism vs. monotheism vs. modalism, it's the divine nature of Mary, it's the whole Armenianism vs. Calvinism debate etc...

There are countless more arguments in modern christianity which validly (from a Biblical perspective anyway) invalidate the next view on vitally important issues surrounding the very nature of God. How can intelligent people not see a problem here? God is exceptionally BADLY defined in the bible, which makes it very very difficult for an agnostic like myself to believe.

If there is no contradiction, then why does god make things so hard to understand? I don't see why he would want to confuse me on purpose. Is this some sick divine joke?

A simpler solution to these contradictions, to call a spade a spade, is that the bible was not divinely inspired (inerrantly anyway), and that there is disagreement between biblical authors. Christians like to pretend that matters that are too hard to resolve via the bible because of "apparent" contradiction are not really important which of course they are. How can one worship something that you cannot even vaguely define? I flat refuse to believe in mysticism - it's intellectual suicide. Then again, what's the difference between mysticism and faith (which in turn is required for salvation)?

P.S. alonzomourning23, I love your signature ;)

[MAP2010.wireless]

No,

Mark

[Danoz]

No,

Mark


Thanks for your contribution. Your vast intellect has been aptly demonstrated, the case is now settled, and no further discussion is required.

[Elrathin]

No,


Why not, where is the scripture that says they don't?

[BoogyMan]

No,


Why not, where is the scripture that says they don't?


Elrathin, children are referred to in the bible as innocent and free of sin. Consider:

At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

[wonder cow]

People have inherited sin, due to the state of mankind, but are not accountable until they themselves commit personal sin.

I base this on John Chapter 9 (and also on comments Jesus made about Children)

Read the whole chapter to see what I mean

John 9
Jesus Heals a Man Born Blind
1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. 4As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

6Having said this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes. 7"Go," he told him, "wash in the Pool of Siloam" (this word means Sent). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.

8His neighbors and those who had formerly seen him begging asked, "Isn't this the same man who used to sit and beg?" 9Some claimed that he was.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Others said, "No, he only looks like him."
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*But he himself insisted, "I am the man."

10"How then were your eyes opened?" they demanded.

11He replied, "The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see."

12"Where is this man?" they asked him.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*"I don't know," he said.

The Pharisees Investigate the Healing
13They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. 14Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man's eyes was a Sabbath. 15Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. "He put mud on my eyes," the man replied, "and I washed, and now I see."
16Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath."
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*But others asked, "How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?" So they were divided.

17Finally they turned again to the blind man, "What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened."
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*The man replied, "He is a prophet."

18The Jews still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man's parents. 19"Is this your son?" they asked. "Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?"

20"We know he is our son," the parents answered, "and we know he was born blind. 21But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don't know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself." 22His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for already the Jews had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ[a] would be put out of the synagogue. 23That was why his parents said, "He is of age; ask him."

24A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. "Give glory to God," they said. "We know this man is a sinner."

25He replied, "Whether he is a sinner or not, I don't know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!"

26Then they asked him, "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?"

27He answered, "I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?"

28Then they hurled insults at him and said, "You are this fellow's disciple! We are disciples of Moses! 29We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don't even know where he comes from."

30The man answered, "Now that is remarkable! You don't know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. 31We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will. 32Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. 33If this man were not from God, he could do nothing."

34To this they replied, "You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!" And they threw him out.

Spiritual Blindness
35Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"
36"Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him."

37Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you."

38Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.

39Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."

40Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?"

41Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.


First, it is clear that Jesus is saying that this man's blindness at birth is not a punishment for sin. The only sin he could have had at birth would have been inherited sin.

Some might argue that this only applies to this one man, but I believe it is clear that Jesus is debunking the idea that God is out to get people over inherited sin.

Now, here is the astounding doctrine in this scripture, 9:40-41 that states basically, because you now know the truth, you are guilty of sin. In other words, these people are now accountable for their sin.

Of course, this means that those who are unable to see (spiritually speaking) like babies or mentally ill individuals, will not be held accountable for their sin.

And I also found this that gives a pretty good argument about the age of accountability.

http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html

Question:Â*Â*"What happens to babies and young children when they die? Where do I find the age of accountability in the Bible?"

Answer:Â*Â*The Bible tells us that even if an infant or child has not committed personal sin, all people including infants and children are guilty before God because of inherited and imputed sin. Inherited sin is that which is passed on from our parents. In Psalm 51:5, David wrote, "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." David recognized that even at conception, he was a sinner. The very sad fact that infants sometimes die demonstrates that even infants are impacted by Adam’s sin, since physical and spiritual death were the results of Adam's original sin.

Each person, infant or adult, stands guilty before God; each person has offended the holiness of God. The only way that God can be just and at the same time declare a person righteous is for that person to have received forgiveness by faith in Christ. Christ is the only way. John 14:6 records what Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me." Also, Peter stated in Acts 4:12, "there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved." Salvation is an individual choice.

Thirteen is the most common number given for the age of accountability based on the Jewish custom that a child becomes an adult at the age of 13. However, the Bible gives no direct support to the age of 13 always being the age of accountability. It likely varies from child to child. A child has passed the age of accountability once he or she is capable of making a faith decision for or against Christ.

With the above in mind, also consider the following: Christ's death is presented as sufficient for all of mankind. First John 2:2 says Jesus "is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." This verse is clear that Jesus' death was sufficient for all sins, not just the sins of those who specifically have come to Him in faith. The fact that Christ's death was sufficient for all sin would allow the possibility of God applying that payment to those who were never capable of believing.

The one passage that seems to identify with this topic more than any other is 2 Samuel 12:21-23. The context of these verses is that King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, with a resulting pregnancy. The prophet Nathan was sent by the Lord to inform David that because of his sin, the Lord would take the child in death. David responded to this by grieving, mourning, and praying for the child. But, once the child was taken, David's mourning ended. David's servants were surprised to hear this. They said to King David, "What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food." David's response was, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." David's response can be seen as an argument that those who cannot believe are safe in the Lord. David said that he could go to the child, but that he could not bring the child back to him. Also, and just as important, David seemed to be comforted over this. In other words, David seemed to be saying that he would once again see the child (in heaven), though he could not bring him back.

Though the Bible leaves open the possibility, the one problem with saying that God applies Christ's payment for sin to those who can't believe is that the Bible does not specifically say that He does this. Therefore, this is a subject for which we should not be adamant or dogmatic. We can, however, be dogmatic about the fact that God ALWAYS does what is right.

Knowing the love and grace of God, God applying Christ’s death to those who cannot believe would seem consistent with His character. It is our position that God applies Christ's payment for sin to young children and those who are mentally handicapped, since they were not mentally capable of understanding their sinful state and their need for the Savior. Of this I am certain, that God is loving, holy, merciful, just and gracious. Whatever He does, it is ALWAYS Right.

[underdawg]

Also it could apply to people of other cultures who had never heard of Jesus. Without the knowledge of Jesus, how could they be held accountable? Perhaps this is a good argument for not spreading the word of Jesus. As long as you don't know any better, you can't be punished for your sins. Maybe ignorance is a good thing.

[Elrathin]

Elrathin, children are referred to in the bible as innocent and free of sin. Consider:


So when do we become sinners then? At what age does this happen Boogy? Sorry, but no, according to the bible we are born sinners.

[BoogyMan]

So when do we become sinners then?Â*Â*At what age does this happen Boogy?Â*Â*Sorry, but no, according to the bible we are born sinners.

I gave you clear scripture, and if you are so desperately biased against the truth of the matter that you refuse to believe it when it is before your eyes, there is little I could ever show you to change your mind.

[Elrathin]

I gave you clear scripture, and if you are so desperately biased against the truth of the matter that you refuse to believe it when it is before your eyes, there is little I could ever show you to change your mind.


Then can you please tell me what the purpose of baptism of babies is then if we are not born sinners?

This should be good.

[wonder cow]

Perhaps this is a good argument for not spreading the word of Jesus. As long as you don't know any better, you can't be punished for your sins. Maybe ignorance is a good thing.

At some point all people "know better". (With the exception of those who are not able.) And it is at this point that they can choose salvation. It is completely spiritual process. The intervention of man is not required.

Witnessing and spreading the gospel is a gift to man, so they can see God's work.

The passage in question is also about humility, a subject Jesus speaks of often. Those who are physically blind are humble and can be made to see. Those who can see, or rather think they can see, are not humble and therefore blind.

Then can you please tell me what the purpose of baptism of babies is then if we are not born sinners?

There is no reason to baptize a baby. Sins are spiritual. Water is physical. Therefore, water does nothing to wash away sin. Baptism is a ceremony only for those who become saved first. It is an outward display of the salvation Jesus has already provided.

[Danoz]

Perhaps this is a good argument for not spreading the word of Jesus. As long as you don't know any better, you can't be punished for your sins. Maybe ignorance is a good thing.

At some point all people "know better". (With the exception of those who are not able.) And it is at this point that they can choose salvation. It is completely spiritual process. The intervention of man is not required.

Witnessing and spreading the gospel is a gift to man, so they can see God's work.


Your first point seems to say that people choose to be a christian without being told about christ, and is not even related to them hearing the "word of god". That it's just a consolation for them that they know that what they are feeling because god only communicates on a spiritual level, not a conceptual level, and therefor needs evangalists to do his talking for him. Is that what you're saying? If so why the heck wouldn't he just reveal himself to a number of prophets all over the world and give them all a copy of the scriptures? Wouldn't that be a starteling proof for god's existance, and his acceptance of all races?

Or maybe it's because he likes Jews more than gentiles and we're the messy seconds. Maybe he just felt like giving his followers something to do so they don't feel all left out and stuff since they're intrinsically worth nothing and useless without his help.

Maybe it's just another shakey doctrine used to expand the churches grip on human minds. I know which one sounds more feasable from my perspective.

[Ralph]

Romans 3:9 says all are under sin, Job 25:4 says no one born of woman is pure, and romans 5:12 says all have sinned. It's kind of hard to imagine an infant sinning unless they were born that way.

It's certainly a debatable point but you have certain passages contradicting other passages.

But, Ezekiel, in context, does not even appear to refer to that concept. With adam and eve, the sin did not die with their death. The effects of that sin plague humanity to this day. So a passage that is referring to the passing on of sin within the family, and that says the sin dies with the person, does not seem to apply to that. If that passage applied to the story of genesis, then the effects of that action would not have been passed on through the generations.



Correct me If I am wrong, but was not Jesus born of a woman, and the yet the scriptures say He was without sin? (Hebrew 4:15). If there is scriptural proof that the mother of Christ was not a woman of this world born via natural methods, please present it.

Did God not warn Cain to change his ways, as he told him such as this, "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, SIN LIETH AT THE DOOR......" (Genesis 4:7). God, Himself was warning Cain that he was about to sin, but you are teaching that Cain was already in sin because he inherited his fathers sin. Who is correct, God or You?

Everyone understands that Adam and Eve sinned and that the result of their sin had a negative impact on mankind. Some of the consequences of their sin (punishments) have been passed on to their children, such as women having pain in childbirth and men having to work hard to exist. The question is whether the actual sin itself has been passed down through the generations. The scriptures themselves answer this question, with a clear and distinct...NO.

Beside the other examples that contradict your conclusions and present the scriptures as contradicting one another, we must conclude that the word is not being rightly divided because, "John 17:17" declares that we must be sanctified in Gods truth and His word is truth.

Consider "Enoch" as described in Genesis 5:21-24, a righteous man who walked with God. He was so righteous that he never died. God took him before he physically died. If Enoch was born into sin why did God have dealings with him as He has said not to have dealings with those in sin (1John 1:5). A persons sins separate him from God (Isaiah 59:1-2), if we all have sin that is inherent then how did Enoch go to be with God?

People who believe that sin is inherited do try to turn to scriptural passages to prove their point. Here are a few that have been misrepresented to try and prove such.

Psalms 51:5. Psalms 51 is a poem that David wrote after he realized that he sinned by having sex with a women named Bathseba (2Sam.12:1-7). David was agonizing over his sin and said, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." If we translate this to mean that he inherited his mothers sin then this would contradict Ezekiel 18. Notice in the contextual message of verses 1-4 in Psalms 51 the sin that David is agonizing over is his own sin; not his mothers or Adams sin; contrast David's statement in 51 with another one he made in 22:9-10. In Psalms 22, David was apparently in a much better mood and he talks about his worshiping God from birth. Now which statement is correct? Did he worship God from birth or was he born inherent to sin? What David is saying is Psalms 51 is clear when taken in its entire context.....He started life in a sinful world and that world has influenced his life.

Another passage would be Romans 3:23. Paul says all have sinned. However, Paul did not say all "are" sinners. The word, "have" indicates an activity on every individual's part, not something that requires no action. Everyone of us have broken God's Laws, and the breaching of Law is sin. (1John3:4). James 1:14-15 declares that "every man" and his lusts are "his own". Every person is indeed faced with a choice between doing right and wrong and Paul is simply saying that every man has at one time or another in his life made the wrong choice and sinned.

Next some like to quote Romans 5:12, but most almost always leave off the last phrase, "so death is passed upon all men, for all men "HAVE" sinned, not because we "ARE SINNERS". Adam introduced death into the world. He introduced both physical death and spiritual death. Those deaths have passed on to all men, not because they are inherited from Adam, but because we all have at some point in our lives SINNED. If we do not sin, would we not have the same happen to us as Enoch? Yes, it is hard to go through this life without sin, that is why it has taken God in the flesh (John 1:1, 1:14) to do so. The world is wicked, we are surrounded by wickedness, yet it is possible to walk without sin. If it were not so, we all would still be sacrificing animals at the alter, to carry our sins over from year to year, instead of living under the New Testament of GRACE. God so loved us that He gave His only "natural" begotten Son to take upon himself our sins.

The very Idea that children are born sinful is a myth. A child begins life in this world in purity and innocence. When children are small, they have no knowledge of good or evil (Deuteronomy 1:39). A child must grow up in order to know to refuse evil and chose good (Isaiah 7:15-16). This is why Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is compared of people who are similar to little children (Mark 10:14). We have to become like children to enter the kingdom (Matt. 18:3). To enter this kingdom, we must be cleansed of our sins, just as little children are without sin. People are punished for their own sins (Col.3:25). God does not chose who is punished for sin or rewarded for righteousness by individual. Rather, the actions of each individual determines whether they will be punished or rewarded. God sets the standards. Our actions are measured against these standards. The decision is on man's part. God remains an impartial judge that cannot lie nor pay respect of person. (R)

[Tsky]

Yeah Ralph I hate to tell you this but...you are a sinner.

The minute you become 100% free of the sin you are PERFECT and the perpetual sacrifice of Jesus is null and void. The Bible only says perfection will be granted to those who are granted with everlasting heavenly life and also to those who will be granted everlasting earthly life. After that has been accomplished the sacrificial blood that Jesus gave on our behalf will have served its purpose. Jesus did not die so that you could be sin free at this present time. He died so that you would have atonement for your sins through the merits of his blood sacrifice, that is why you don't need to slaughter a lamb and sacrifice it to God for forgiveness of your sins, it is not because you are sinless.

OH and as for the original topic of conversation - do babies go to hell if they die? Yes. Hell is the common grave and babies are placed there after they die.

[Keith Hamburger]

And you guys expect us non-believers to believe?

If god is all-knowing, he knows about this fight going on and has done nothing to clarify "his word" to bring about clarity.

I know the next thing that's going to come from this is "free will". But, god is the "alpha and the omega". He knows all that has been adn all that will be. If he knows this, he knows what you are going to decide, therefore, in his knowledge, what you will decide has been fore-ordained. If foreordination exists, free will cannot.

Even if your god is all-powerful (omnipotent) and all-knowing (omniscient), he can't be all good (omnibenevolent) because he left you in this whole mess although he could have avoided it.

Keith

[David Hume]

Original sin is nothing more than the bitter & persistent aftertaste of knowledge.

No reason to modify the words of the master. I give you:

"The Absurdity of Original Sin" by Robert G. Ingersoll

The title of this monograph speaks clearly for itself. I intend to demonstrate the absurdity at the very heart of the Christian faith. Why do I do so? It is such an action that a man might take towards his friend who still believes, at an advanced age, in the existence of "Santa Claus". Such a belief in an adult would hardly be considered healthy. So why does the belief in the foundation of Christianity, The Fall of Man, persist? I maintain that it is because no person sets aside their fear of final death and need for a watchful loving father figure long enough to seriously and soberly think it through. I have done so, and can honestly say that nothing could be more false than the idea of Original Sin and Salvation.

Even if you are a believer, a person of faith, I will ask you to look at the story as if you are not. Look upon the Genesis account not as you have always done, through the filter of faith, but with the detachment of one who seeks to gain nothing from the story; like an unbeliever. Read it as you would any other book, and judge it on its own merits.

Why did God put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden? What purpose did it serve? Did God Himself need the knowledge of good and evil? Did He have to take a piece of the magical fruit now and again to refresh His memory? We can assume that He did not. Did any of the animals of the Garden need the Tree? We can assume not. What kind of tree was this? An apple tree, an orange tree, a banana tree? The bible does not tell us. How could a tree, an organism of wood and sap, contain the knowledge of good and evil? What capacity did it have for storing such knowledge, and how was that knowledge passed on by eating and digesting it? Allow yourself to think about that... Why, therefore, among all the useful and decorative trees, did God deliberately include this tree, the tree that carries the warning: "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"?

Did He put it in the Garden as a temptation to test Adam and Eve? The bible says very clearly that cannot be the case. God does not tempt: “Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man.� (James 1:13) Therefore, we have a tree of a nature that we cannot comprehend, whose fruit is so sinful to consume that it would result in the immediate and eternal damnation of humankind, placed in a location so precarious as to make that outcome an inevitability, all apparently for no purpose whatever. Imagine a caring, loving parent leaving a loaded pistol in the playroom of a five year old child, knowing fully what the result would be, and watching from a crack in the door as the child blows his brains out.

Did God know Eve would eat the fruit? Of course He did! We are told by the bible that God knows all things from the Beginning unto the End. Did He not know Eve would give it to Adam? Of course He did. Did He not know that the serpent would tempt Eve? He did, if we are to accept the bible. Therefore, did Eve have any free will in the matter? Could she have acted in a manner other than God had foreseen for her? Of course not! How could she? Who was responsible for putting the principle actors-- Adam, Eve, the serpent and the Tree-- all together in the Garden of Eden? God, of course. The inescapable conclusion? That He put all the pieces on the game board, and enacted His own little drama, resulting in the deliberate, eternal damnation of Humankind. Could a devil have done worse?

We are told that at their creation, Adam and Eve, like small children, did not posses the knowledge of good and evil, of right from wrong. Should Adam and Eve therefore be held responsible for committing an action prior to them having the Knowledge of Good and Evil? I would not think so. They disobeyed an instruction before they knew it was wrong to disobey. Was this the Ultimate Sin, for which every human being ever born was to pay with their eternal soul? Was that the worse thing that Adam and Eve could have done? They could have beaten and slaughtered each other, and destroyed their paradise. But they did not do anything so cruel or barbaric. They ate a piece of fruit, contrary to the will of an arbitrary god. People disobey God's commands millions of times every day all over the earth-- from lying and stealing to murder and worshipping other gods... why then was Adam and Eve's simple disobedience to carry such a heavy price? It would have been fair of God to give Eve this same warning... but He did not. He uttered it before He pulled out Adam's rib and made a whole woman. (Why did He not use the dirt again, I wonder?) We have no record of God or Adam telling Eve of this dreadful warning, so why should she be held accountable?

Would you treat your own children that way? Would you condemn them to eternal torture, infinite revenge, never ending intense pain with no chance of pardon, for taking a cookie out of the cookie jar before dinner, after you had told them not to? And would you condemn your children's children, and all generations that will come after? What sort of justice is this? No natural person can condone this. All that the Christians can say is that we cannot understand God's method of justice. That is all they can say.

Why should I be held responsible for Eve's decision to eat the fruit? Why should you? If your distant ancestor, four hundred years ago, killed a man in an act of cruel and pointless savagery, should you be handed a life sentence in prison for it? God Himself states in the bible that He does not punish the children for the sins of their fathers. Are we to conclude by this that we have no sin upon us as the result of our births? No stain of eternal depravity upon us? Might not the notion of Original Sin be the fabrication of the Church, in order that they might further their careers and ensure their survival? For if one does not need to be saved, one does not need priests and preachers. Christians tells us that without their religion, all of us are doomed without hope. They try to convince us of the dilemma they have created for us, then try to convince us that they alone have the remedy. Christianity cuts you and then tries to sell you a Band-Aid.

Because of the Fall of Man, we are told that it is not enough that we are good and caring people, not enough that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us, not enough that we forgive those who trespass against us. We must be baptized-- have our heads wet by a priest-- a meaningless gesture, and proclaim that we accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior. We must believe the unbelievable. A Hindu, who happens to be more charitable and humane than the best Christian, is nonetheless consigned to eternal damnation, just as the kind and gentle native of some tropical island who never heard of Jesus and his cross.

If, as the Christian doctrine teaches, the only way to salvation is through Christ, what became of all the souls of the people who died before Jesus' appearance on earth? All those Old Testament figures, all those who died in battle? Millions of people, to be sure. They had no chance of salvation before Jesus, had they? If we are to believe the dogma of salvation through faith, then we must believe that by their mere birth, they were consigned to hell without a chance, no matter how virtuously they lived.

Why do you suppose God waited so long to send Himself down in the form of Jesus? Did He care nothing for the souls of all those men, women and children born between the four thousand years of time between Adam and Jesus? What of all those instances when God commanded His servants to kill men, women and children, sparing no one, knowing full well that they had no chance to be saved? Why didn't Jesus appear in the generation immediately following Cain and Abel, when the number of persons on earth could be counted on one hand? The task of convincing people that Jesus was in fact God would have been effortless. In such a scenario, every human ever born would have a much fairer chance of attaining salvation. Because of God's failure to do this, however, the vast majority of people who ever lived were doomed without hope.

Christians tell us that Christ died to absolve Original Sin, so that all who believe in him might be saved. It is written that he came for the sole purpose of dying. Would it not then have been just as well if he had died of a fever, or of small-pox, or of old age, or from any other reason? We all suffer in some sense, and we all come into the world for the ultimately sole purpose of dying.

If Jesus Christ was in fact God, and if he came into this world to suffer for us as Christians tell us he did, then the only real suffering he could have endured would have been to live. His existence on earth was a mortal state of exile or banishment from Heaven, the most perfect place, and the only way back to the paradise that was his home was to die. Everything in this strange system is the reverse of what it pretends to be.

The sacrifice of Jesus was no sacrifice at all, for a number of reasons. First, according to the New Testament, Jesus Christ was God Himself. What possible inconvenience could death represent for an immortal god? None whatsoever. Would not God have an infinite capacity for enduring physical pain? Was crucifixion the worst possible way to be put to death? I submit that it was not. It is my opinion that burning to death by a slow roast would have been far more painful. The Church should know all about burning people to death, by the way, they did it enough. Their devices of torture were state of the art. Christ's suffering was negligible compared to those who disagreed with His Church. Additionally, Christ supposedly came back three days later. So just what was sacrificed? It's not a sacrifice if you take it back. And yet, the Christians claim Jesus made the most ultimate and perfect sacrifice. Is there anything more absurd than this?

The claim is made that the price for sin was so high that Man could not pay it. Only God could pay the debt. Like a father who assumes the debt that his son cannot pay, we are told that God allowed Himself to be sacrificed on the cross so that he can forgive us. So, your child has just taken a cookie out of the cookie jar when he wasn't supposed to. Now, to forgive him, you tell him: “Take this hammer and these nails, and nail me up onto a piece of wood until I die. Murder me, perform a human sacrifice, and then I'll forgive you for taking a cookie.� Sacrifice the guiltless in order to forgive those who did no wrong, for a crime that was no crime in the first place.

Suppose that a man had been convicted of murder, and was about to be hanged The governor watches over the execution. Now suppose that at the moment the convicted man was about to be hanged, someone in the crowd steps forward and announces, "I am willing to die in the place of that murderer. He has a family, and I have none." And suppose further, that the governor should reply, “Come forward, young man, your offer is accepted. A murder has been committed and somebody must be hanged, and your death will satisfy the law just as well as the death of the murderer." Is this situation acceptable to any civilized person? Yet this is the Christian doctrine of sacrifice.

When is enough punishment enough? How much will the God of Love inflict upon His children? First there was the Fall from Grace. That was supposed to be the ultimate punishment, when mankind became separated from the presence of God and cast out of the Garden of Eden. When that did not succeed, God sent the Great Flood, and killed virtually every human on earth. When that did not cleanse the world of wickedness, Jesus came to earth and taught mankind about the fires and torments of Hell. This tactic is obviously failing, and we are told that even Hell is not enough punishment and suffering; for it is written that Armageddon and Judgment Day are yet to come. If God's justice was totally satisfied with the sacrifice of Jesus, as Christian Doctrine teaches, then why all the horror, torture and killing that is yet to come at Armageddon, where nearly everyone on earth, Christian and infidel, will be subject to pain, suffering and death? The reason is that I suppose that once you have a taste for a certain habit, it is difficult to stop. And Jehovah has certainly demonstrated that He has acquired that taste.

It is clear that Christianity is a gilded mansion built upon a foundation of sand. It's basis is not only unexplainable, but illogical and immoral as well. But, as people so often say when they are faced with such illogical, immoral conundrums that they can't talk their way out of, "God works in mysterious ways."

[underdawg]

I agree David Hume. The Christian God seems pretty evil if you ask me. Christians are like abused children. They seem to confuse abuse as a form of love by saying that God works or moves in mysterious ways when the actions of God are clearly abusive as seen in the Old Testament.

[BoogyMan]

Original sin according to the Bible everyone is born with. No matter how nice the baby may seem to be, it is guilty, and until the day comes that it can understand that it has this spiritual affliction and can ask forgiveness and have it taken away, then if death were to come, one would assume that this baby is banned from heaven and would be bound for hell just as surely as any murderer or thief that hasn't repented of his sins. How do others feel about this? Does God make exceptions for babies and the retarded? If dead babies go to heaven then the whole idea of original sin must also be abandoned.


Sorry underdawg, but the "original sin" doctrine is nowhere found in the bible. It is the folly of man.

[AnnEsthesia]

And that is why I have my handbasket. I cannot believe in a religion that screams yells and stomps its feet and holds its breath and says it is the only way or else. All the fear and doom and gloom and bullshit that is spewed to guilt and terrify you into believing is just nauseating.

[BoogyMan]

I gave you clear scripture, and if you are so desperately biased against the truth of the matter that you refuse to believe it when it is before your eyes, there is little I could ever show you to change your mind.


Then can you please tell me what the purpose of baptism of babies is then if we are not born sinners?

This should be good.


Infant baptism is also NOT found in the bible.

[Ralph]

There are several scriptures that point out the scriptural "fact" that the sin of Adam is not inherent or natural to all men. Jesus Himself, being born of a woman that is natural in comparison to all other men, thus the title "the Son of Man", shows it is possible to be sinless and be born upon this earth, the same earth that created Adam, "Inasmuch then as the CHILDREN have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Romans 2:14). Jesus took on human flesh and lived as a man, yet he did so without sinning. "For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an EXAMPLE(Kinda hard to follow an example of not sinning when one is born with inherited sin, is it not?), that you should follow His steps: "Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth" (IPeter 2:21-22). Jesus' life proved that it is not inherent in human flesh to be born with inherited sin or is it a requirement to sin.

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and THUS DEATH SPREAD TO ALL MEN, BECAUSE ALL "SINNED"---For until the law sin was in the world, but SIN IS "NOT IMPUTED" WHEN THERE IS NO LAW. Nevertheless death reigned form ADAM TO MOSES, even over those WHO HAD NOT SINNED ACCORDING TO THE LIKENESS OF THE TRANSGRESSION OF ADAM, who is a type of Him who was to come (Rom.5:12-14). This passage makes makes several things VERY CLEAR....

a.) Sin doesn't exist without law. Again, reinforcing the fact that sin is the breaking of the law. b.) Death spread to mankind, not because Adam sinned, but because all men sin. c.) We don't all commit the same sin. Therefore, we are not guilty of Adams sin, as clearly stated "those who had NOT sinned according to the likeness of ADAM in Vs. 14.

It is our weakness that makes it necessary for God to rescue us, not sin inherited from Adam, but sin that we all produce by breaking the laws of God. Thus the Letter killeth but the Spirit giveth LIFE (2Cor.3:6). How can a child be responsible for sin defined as breaking the law, when they are born without the cognation of reason to even comprehend the concept of law? Thus, the words of the scriptures, ".....and your children,which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil...." (Deut. 1:39) One must have the knowledge between good and evil to sin, as this passage shows that the children of Israel shall be allowed to inherit the land God promised. But God said, unto the others, "....as for you, turn you, and take your journey in the wilderness by way of the Red Sea. God punished the adults but not the children....Why? Because, they knew not between good and evil. They were innocent in the eyes of God, just as was Adam and Eve prior to partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They had no knowledge of good and evil before being deceived and gaining this knowledge, then they "realized" they had sinned, and subject to the punishment thereof, to be separated from God. The same for children, they can not sin, without first having the ability to reason they have broken God's laws and have sinned, they are innocent until such time, and can not be separated from God. THUS WHEN CHILDREN DIE THEY ARE WITH GOD ETERNALLY. (R)

[AlonzoMourning23]

Original sin is nothing more than the bitter & persistent aftertaste of knowledge.

No reason to modify the words of the master. I give you:

"The Absurdity of Original Sin" by Robert G. Ingersoll

The title of this monograph speaks clearly for itself. I intend to demonstrate the absurdity at the very heart of the Christian faith. Why do I do so? It is such an action that a man might take towards his friend who still believes, at an advanced age, in the existence of "Santa Claus". Such a belief in an adult would hardly be considered healthy. So why does the belief in the foundation of Christianity, The Fall of Man, persist? I maintain that it is because no person sets aside their fear of final death and need for a watchful loving father figure long enough to seriously and soberly think it through. I have done so, and can honestly say that nothing could be more false than the idea of Original Sin and Salvation.

Even if you are a believer, a person of faith, I will ask you to look at the story as if you are not. Look upon the Genesis account not as you have always done, through the filter of faith, but with the detachment of one who seeks to gain nothing from the story; like an unbeliever. Read it as you would any other book, and judge it on its own merits.

Why did God put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden? What purpose did it serve? Did God Himself need the knowledge of good and evil? Did He have to take a piece of the magical fruit now and again to refresh His memory? We can assume that He did not. Did any of the animals of the Garden need the Tree? We can assume not. What kind of tree was this? An apple tree, an orange tree, a banana tree? The bible does not tell us. How could a tree, an organism of wood and sap, contain the knowledge of good and evil? What capacity did it have for storing such knowledge, and how was that knowledge passed on by eating and digesting it? Allow yourself to think about that... Why, therefore, among all the useful and decorative trees, did God deliberately include this tree, the tree that carries the warning: "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"?

Did He put it in the Garden as a temptation to test Adam and Eve? The bible says very clearly that cannot be the case. God does not tempt: “Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man.� (James 1:13) Therefore, we have a tree of a nature that we cannot comprehend, whose fruit is so sinful to consume that it would result in the immediate and eternal damnation of humankind, placed in a location so precarious as to make that outcome an inevitability, all apparently for no purpose whatever. Imagine a caring, loving parent leaving a loaded pistol in the playroom of a five year old child, knowing fully what the result would be, and watching from a crack in the door as the child blows his brains out.

Did God know Eve would eat the fruit? Of course He did! We are told by the bible that God knows all things from the Beginning unto the End. Did He not know Eve would give it to Adam? Of course He did. Did He not know that the serpent would tempt Eve? He did, if we are to accept the bible. Therefore, did Eve have any free will in the matter? Could she have acted in a manner other than God had foreseen for her? Of course not! How could she? Who was responsible for putting the principle actors-- Adam, Eve, the serpent and the Tree-- all together in the Garden of Eden? God, of course. The inescapable conclusion? That He put all the pieces on the game board, and enacted His own little drama, resulting in the deliberate, eternal damnation of Humankind. Could a devil have done worse?

We are told that at their creation, Adam and Eve, like small children, did not posses the knowledge of good and evil, of right from wrong. Should Adam and Eve therefore be held responsible for committing an action prior to them having the Knowledge of Good and Evil? I would not think so. They disobeyed an instruction before they knew it was wrong to disobey. Was this the Ultimate Sin, for which every human being ever born was to pay with their eternal soul? Was that the worse thing that Adam and Eve could have done? They could have beaten and slaughtered each other, and destroyed their paradise. But they did not do anything so cruel or barbaric. They ate a piece of fruit, contrary to the will of an arbitrary god. People disobey God's commands millions of times every day all over the earth-- from lying and stealing to murder and worshipping other gods... why then was Adam and Eve's simple disobedience to carry such a heavy price? It would have been fair of God to give Eve this same warning... but He did not. He uttered it before He pulled out Adam's rib and made a whole woman. (Why did He not use the dirt again, I wonder?) We have no record of God or Adam telling Eve of this dreadful warning, so why should she be held accountable?

Would you treat your own children that way? Would you condemn them to eternal torture, infinite revenge, never ending intense pain with no chance of pardon, for taking a cookie out of the cookie jar before dinner, after you had told them not to? And would you condemn your children's children, and all generations that will come after? What sort of justice is this? No natural person can condone this. All that the Christians can say is that we cannot understand God's method of justice. That is all they can say.

Why should I be held responsible for Eve's decision to eat the fruit? Why should you? If your distant ancestor, four hundred years ago, killed a man in an act of cruel and pointless savagery, should you be handed a life sentence in prison for it? God Himself states in the bible that He does not punish the children for the sins of their fathers. Are we to conclude by this that we have no sin upon us as the result of our births? No stain of eternal depravity upon us? Might not the notion of Original Sin be the fabrication of the Church, in order that they might further their careers and ensure their survival? For if one does not need to be saved, one does not need priests and preachers. Christians tells us that without their religion, all of us are doomed without hope. They try to convince us of the dilemma they have created for us, then try to convince us that they alone have the remedy. Christianity cuts you and then tries to sell you a Band-Aid.

Because of the Fall of Man, we are told that it is not enough that we are good and caring people, not enough that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us, not enough that we forgive those who trespass against us. We must be baptized-- have our heads wet by a priest-- a meaningless gesture, and proclaim that we accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior. We must believe the unbelievable. A Hindu, who happens to be more charitable and humane than the best Christian, is nonetheless consigned to eternal damnation, just as the kind and gentle native of some tropical island who never heard of Jesus and his cross.

If, as the Christian doctrine teaches, the only way to salvation is through Christ, what became of all the souls of the people who died before Jesus' appearance on earth? All those Old Testament figures, all those who died in battle? Millions of people, to be sure. They had no chance of salvation before Jesus, had they? If we are to believe the dogma of salvation through faith, then we must believe that by their mere birth, they were consigned to hell without a chance, no matter how virtuously they lived.

Why do you suppose God waited so long to send Himself down in the form of Jesus? Did He care nothing for the souls of all those men, women and children born between the four thousand years of time between Adam and Jesus? What of all those instances when God commanded His servants to kill men, women and children, sparing no one, knowing full well that they had no chance to be saved? Why didn't Jesus appear in the generation immediately following Cain and Abel, when the number of persons on earth could be counted on one hand? The task of convincing people that Jesus was in fact God would have been effortless. In such a scenario, every human ever born would have a much fairer chance of attaining salvation. Because of God's failure to do this, however, the vast majority of people who ever lived were doomed without hope.

Christians tell us that Christ died to absolve Original Sin, so that all who believe in him might be saved. It is written that he came for the sole purpose of dying. Would it not then have been just as well if he had died of a fever, or of small-pox, or of old age, or from any other reason? We all suffer in some sense, and we all come into the world for the ultimately sole purpose of dying.

If Jesus Christ was in fact God, and if he came into this world to suffer for us as Christians tell us he did, then the only real suffering he could have endured would have been to live. His existence on earth was a mortal state of exile or banishment from Heaven, the most perfect place, and the only way back to the paradise that was his home was to die. Everything in this strange system is the reverse of what it pretends to be.

The sacrifice of Jesus was no sacrifice at all, for a number of reasons. First, according to the New Testament, Jesus Christ was God Himself. What possible inconvenience could death represent for an immortal god? None whatsoever. Would not God have an infinite capacity for enduring physical pain? Was crucifixion the worst possible way to be put to death? I submit that it was not. It is my opinion that burning to death by a slow roast would have been far more painful. The Church should know all about burning people to death, by the way, they did it enough. Their devices of torture were state of the art. Christ's suffering was negligible compared to those who disagreed with His Church. Additionally, Christ supposedly came back three days later. So just what was sacrificed? It's not a sacrifice if you take it back. And yet, the Christians claim Jesus made the most ultimate and perfect sacrifice. Is there anything more absurd than this?

The claim is made that the price for sin was so high that Man could not pay it. Only God could pay the debt. Like a father who assumes the debt that his son cannot pay, we are told that God allowed Himself to be sacrificed on the cross so that he can forgive us. So, your child has just taken a cookie out of the cookie jar when he wasn't supposed to. Now, to forgive him, you tell him: “Take this hammer and these nails, and nail me up onto a piece of wood until I die. Murder me, perform a human sacrifice, and then I'll forgive you for taking a cookie.� Sacrifice the guiltless in order to forgive those who did no wrong, for a crime that was no crime in the first place.

Suppose that a man had been convicted of murder, and was about to be hanged The governor watches over the execution. Now suppose that at the moment the convicted man was about to be hanged, someone in the crowd steps forward and announces, "I am willing to die in the place of that murderer. He has a family, and I have none." And suppose further, that the governor should reply, “Come forward, young man, your offer is accepted. A murder has been committed and somebody must be hanged, and your death will satisfy the law just as well as the death of the murderer." Is this situation acceptable to any civilized person? Yet this is the Christian doctrine of sacrifice.

When is enough punishment enough? How much will the God of Love inflict upon His children? First there was the Fall from Grace. That was supposed to be the ultimate punishment, when mankind became separated from the presence of God and cast out of the Garden of Eden. When that did not succeed, God sent the Great Flood, and killed virtually every human on earth. When that did not cleanse the world of wickedness, Jesus came to earth and taught mankind about the fires and torments of Hell. This tactic is obviously failing, and we are told that even Hell is not enough punishment and suffering; for it is written that Armageddon and Judgment Day are yet to come. If God's justice was totally satisfied with the sacrifice of Jesus, as Christian Doctrine teaches, then why all the horror, torture and killing that is yet to come at Armageddon, where nearly everyone on earth, Christian and infidel, will be subject to pain, suffering and death? The reason is that I suppose that once you have a taste for a certain habit, it is difficult to stop. And Jehovah has certainly demonstrated that He has acquired that taste.

It is clear that Christianity is a gilded mansion built upon a foundation of sand. It's basis is not only unexplainable, but illogical and immoral as well. But, as people so often say when they are faced with such illogical, immoral conundrums that they can't talk their way out of, "God works in mysterious ways."


I'm always amazed at the lengths certain atheists will go to to denounce what they deem as fairy tales, and the foolishness of said fairy tales followers. A simple "I don't believe" should suffice I would think. Sometime I wonder if those individuals are as concerned about convincing themselves as they are their opponent. After all, they risk a higher penalty if they're wrong than their opponent does. I'm sure the high stakes weigh heavily on the minds of some, whether they want to admit to it or not. Or maybe they just can't let go of some past offense against them which they blame on God or its followers.

At least an evangelist is trying to save you from something. It seems a tad sadder to see an atheist devote so much of their time to convince people about the great nothing.

[David Hume]

I'm always amazed at the lengths certain atheists will go to to denounce what they deem as fairy tales, and the foolishness of said fairy tales followers. A simple "I don't believe" should suffice I would think. Sometime I wonder if those individuals are as concerned about convincing themselves as they are their opponent. After all, they risk a higher penalty if they're wrong than their opponent does. I'm sure the high stakes weigh heavily on the minds of some, whether they want to admit to it or not. Or maybe they just can't let go of some past offense against them which they blame on God or its followers.

At least an evangelist is trying to save you from something. It seems a tad sadder to see an atheist devote so much of their time to convince people about the great nothing.


First, you make the mistake that either Mr. Ingersoll or I are atheists.

Second, you make the mistake that atheists (or, more aptly, non-Christians) aren't trying to save you from something. That something would be adherence to mythology that clouds reason and trumps rationality. It is the evangelist who ultimately "saves" us from nothing.

[AmericanDreamer]

Only if they are Rosemary's baby:clapper:

[Trish]

James 4:17 says, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." Unless and until a person "knows" that his or her actions are bad and does them anyway, that person has not sinned. Sin is a choice - the deliberate, purposeful choice of doing something that one knows is wrong. over choosing what one knows as good or right. Those people who do not "know" something is bad cannot sin. Children, those with mental impairment, etc. cannot sin because they cannot deliberately make the choice to do what is good over what is wrong. It is the knowing that something is bad or wrong and yet choosing to do it anyway that makes an action sinful.

It should be remembered that Jesus was a Jew. He was born, raised and lived as a Jew. While I am not an expert on Orthodox Judaism by any stretch of the imagination, I do know that ritualistic bathing was a necessary component of Jewish lie. One bathed before entering the temples to cleanse oneself of impurity. The Christian rite of baptism is similar. According to my understanding of Scripture, baptism is the symbolic acknowledgement that one is a Christian. I've always thought of baptism as sort of a membership card. The card itself does not impart membership, but rather is a means of acknowledging that membership. Baptism does not make one a Christian, but rather is a symbol that one has joined "the club" so to speak. Catholics and Protestants have different views of baptism, just as they have different views on forgiveness of sin. I have always thought that the means was not nearly as important as the outcome. In other words, I think the destination is more important than the means of transportation. If our goal is to arrive at the same place, what does it matter if I choose to fly and you choose to roller skate?

I am also of the personal belief (yes, yes I know - a very heretical perspective) that whether one is Christian or non-Christian, the same principles apply. It's the destination that counts more than the means of transportation. Every human, excepting those too young or those mentally impaired or broken, knows what is right and what is wrong. It is something that is "felt" within each of us. We know before we do something or fail to do something if our choice is right or wrong - good or bad. Our lives are a journey and our religious beliefs are roadmaps to help us navigate that journey. Does it really matter if I choose one map over another? I don't think so. I have always thought that just as each of us know what is right and wrong, each of us also knows what is the right route for us to take. We "feel" the rightness of that route.

"No man can reveal to you aught but that which already lies half asleep in the dawning of your knowledge...For the vision of one man lends not its wings to another man...And even as each one of you stands alone in God's knowledge, so must each one of you be alone in his knowledge of God and in his understanding of the earth." Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet

[David Hume]

My mother takes great solace in the fact that I was baptized before I had fully reached the age of reason (I was about 12). She honestly thinks, no matter my disdain for organized religion these days, that I'm "saved" just because a guy in a gown dunked me in a bathtub for a few seconds.

How utterly silly.

[AlonzoMourning23]

And I'm sure you bristle at the lack of respect she shows your beliefs hume?

[Tsky]

"It is our weakness that makes it necessary for God to rescue us, not sin inherited from Adam, but sin that we all produce by breaking the laws of God." Ralph

Nevermind that this quote and many others are DIRECTLY OPPOSITE of what the Bible says. I love how you post scriptures that say one thing and then go about infusing your belief into the scripture. There are some scriptures that require reading several passages to arrive at the meaning, the ones you have quoted are pretty clear. It is impossible for an imperfect man to produce perfect children. The Bible says 'the wage sin pays is death.' If you cannot die, you are perfect. How about you go outside and walk in front of a car and tell us about your experience later today. Jesus was 'screened off in the belly' of his mother so he was shielded from inherited sin as his conception and birth was a miracle and CANNOT be compared to our birth. If you are human being living on this earth today, you are a sinner. It is unfortunate that you have allowed yourself to digest a teaching or doctrine that can only lead you to failure. If you do not believe you are a sinner and are in need of forgiveness then are already at a great spiritual disadvantage. You are saying the sacrifice of Christ is null and void in your case.

[moses2792796]

Actually Tsky I would be willing to bet that I could survive walking in front of a car, now a truck on the other hand...

[Ralph]

I'm always amazed at the lengths certain atheists will go to to denounce what they deem as fairy tales, and the foolishness of said fairy tales followers. A simple "I don't believe" should suffice I would think. Sometime I wonder if those individuals are as concerned about convincing themselves as they are their opponent. After all, they risk a higher penalty if they're wrong than their opponent does. I'm sure the high stakes weigh heavily on the minds of some, whether they want to admit to it or not. Or maybe they just can't let go of some past offense against them which they blame on God or its followers.

At least an evangelist is trying to save you from something. It seems a tad sadder to see an atheist devote so much of their time to convince people about the great nothing.


First, you make the mistake that either Mr. Ingersoll or I are atheists.

Second, you make the mistake that atheists (or, more aptly, non-Christians) aren't trying to save you from something. That something would be adherence to mythology that clouds reason and trumps rationality. It is the evangelist who ultimately "saves" us from nothing.


Thus far, there has been nothing "intelligent" offered as to sway anyone's faith, as the scripts are superior in both intellect and the truth as professed within their passages. I have seen nothing but the pompous nature of someone that projects superior intellect while only proving their ignorance of "what is written" and what is actually true, as there is "no proof" of there ever being any "contradiction" to any truth found in the scripture, only the "hypothesis" offered from between the ears of the pompous, with nothing "empirical" ever presented to support the bluster. That is formulated in the "absurdity" of such....NOTHING + NOBODY = everything. Therefore the universe must have existed before it came into existence. And the people of religious faith are professed to be a product of "BLIND FAITH".

One simple question will indeed "prove" the superiority that is projected. Where did the mass/matter that gestated both "time and space" come from if it were not a product of being "created" by..............?

The "knowledge" is always claimed but never produced, please provide the evidence provided in an empirical manner of course for the birth of the Universe, and that which produced it......Explain how the Hydrogen and Helium both cooled and concentrated to form solid mass that contains elements of the planets, such as nickel, iron, carbon...etc, while at the same time that the energy of the Big Bang was expanding outward and rapidly could stop and concentrate energy needed for the formation of stars, and galaxies.....no speculation please only the empirical knowledge that is claimed.

Next please empirically explain "life" being a product of inert solid mass, how did this life come about, empirically, not hypothesis. Next, present the evidence that suggests that this magically produced biological life could survive for billions of years without other life sources to draw upon for energy and growth( food). Next, please empirically provide the information as to how, this life could evolve and self generate "knowledge" need for DNA expansion, without other life sources to draw upon.

Next, please explain in empirical evidence how there is no ancestral lineage for "macrolife" prior to the "Cambrian explosion"....yet the fossil record is full of "mircolife" example. How does the "evidence" of macro-biological life remain hidden....no theories please, only empirically produced evidence.

Next, please provide only "one" example of any marcolife breaching the species barrier of biogenesis....please provide the reproducible and observed evidence for this conclusion of speculation. One example of anything in the fossil record of some transistional life form, especially that between man and lower life.

Answer these questions with the "empirical science" that you claim to work within and I will cease the belief of my "Faith", if not, why should we believe that you have "anything" to offer other than "PSEUDO SCIENCE"?

"Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof; I also laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me; FOR THEY HATED KNOWLEDGE, AND DID NOT CHOOSE THE FEAR OF THE LORD. (R)

[AlonzoMourning23]

And there goes the other side shouting their superiority. Two sides of the same coin, and never the two shall meet.

It would be amusing to watch you two go at it if it wasn't simply a microcosm of what goes on everyday.

[Tsky]

Actually Tsky I would be willing to bet that I could survive walking in front of a car, now a truck on the other hand...


No Moses, you are pretty invincible, I'm sure of it.

Ralph on the on the other hand likely wouldn't survive a close encounter with a 4 year old on a tricycle...

[underdawg]

Personally I really don't know how the universerse started or how the exact way that humans came to live on this planet, but for me I tend to follow the most resonable explanations. Since every living thing on this planet shares certain various genetic material in common and that Chimpanzees and humans have the same 96 % of their genetic material, it makes much more sense to me to believe that humans and the great apes arose from a common ancester instead of believing that some unobserved god magically made mankind from dust. There are tons of clues in the fossil record to suggest that some sort of evolutionary change happened over very long periods of time and all we have from Christianity or other religions are books and oral traditions, but as we all know, people tend to exaggerate whatever truth there might have been.

Even if there was the possibility of there being a god, or gods, why should someone believe in a Christian god over the countless other gods that humans have believed in over the eons of human civilization? If I for some reason were to go shopping for a god to believe in or follow, I certainly don't think that the Christian god offers much to a person like me. The Christian god seems quite unfair, tends to be quite jealous, plays favoritism over some groups over others, and when their god of the past is said to have done horrible things, his folloers excuse his behavior by saying that he moves in strange and mysterious ways. I also tend to judge a god by the actions of his followers. Christianity has quite a violent and intolerant history. Christians in the name of god have destroyed countless cultures, forsed other people to convert to Christianity, and they have killed in the name of god. Even today Christianity tries to bully certain groups that they deem as ungodly, such as gays.

I have grown up in the Methodist and Baptist churches and I was always taught that the only way to get to heaven was to confess your sins and believe that Jesus died for your sins and ask him into your life. Now the glitch in this tale was that I was told that everyone sins and was born with sin. Now the reason for this whole thread is not that i care if babies go to heaven or not but to point out the unfairness of this Christian god. When I was a child I asked the question, If I live my life as a good person will I go to hell if I don't believe in Jesus being the son of god. They most certainly tld me that if I didn't accept Jesus as my savior, no matter how good a person I was, I would go to hell. Well the next logical question was, If babies die before they are old enough to know about Jesus and have done no wrong, do they also go to hell? Expecting to hear the same answer I was surprised to hear them say that babies indeed go to heaven because they are innocent. Hmmm something was certainly wrong here and totally unfair. A person will be punished for eternity if just for gaining a concious and a baby automatically gets a go for doing nothing. Then I asked about people in parts of the world where they have never heard of Jesus. Do these people go to hell? I was told that yes indeed they do. That is why we have missionaries. So how are innocent babies different from tribes of people in the world that never heard of Jesus. Now if these people get a go like babies do, then I would have been better off never hearing about Jesus in the first place. And what about someone with alzheimers desease or becomes brain damaged at an early age. Does that erase sin?

[David Hume]

And I'm sure you bristle at the lack of respect she shows your beliefs hume?


This is third false assumption you've made in your last two posts on this thread.

Congratulations on the hat trick, my man![hr]
And there goes the other side shouting their superiority. Two sides of the same coin, and never the two shall meet.

It would be amusing to watch you two go at it if it wasn't simply a microcosm of what goes on everyday.


Wait, Zo, he's on your team. I think you meant to say, "There we go shouting our superiority."

Tell ya' what----Ralph & you PM one another, get your talking points straight, and then come back & refute any contradiction Ingersoll pointed out. I tend to deal only in what can either be observed or reasoned out. Metaphors, interpretations, faith-based whatever----these don't quite cut it in the world of rationality.

[Yarp]

In Catholicism unbaptized babies go to Limbo, baptised ones go to heaven.

If dead babies go to heaven then the whole idea of original sin must also be abandoned.


I don't see why. Original sin is not a personal sin and is not damning in and of itself. Though that is one of the reasons Catholics baptize babies, to get rid of that sin.


Actually we changed this.

[BoogyMan]

In Catholicism unbaptized babies go to Limbo, baptised ones go to heaven.

If dead babies go to heaven then the whole idea of original sin must also be abandoned.


I don't see why. Original sin is not a personal sin and is not damning in and of itself. Though that is one of the reasons Catholics baptize babies, to get rid of that sin.


Actually we changed this.


The doctrine of original sin is purely a doctrine created by man and cannot be substantiated biblically.

[DANG]

I am positive babies do not go to Texas "if they die".

There would be piles of dead babies, and I know thats not the case, I have been to Hell, Satan smolders in Dallas.

[Pookie]

How can a religion who claims to follow a just and loving God say that babies go to hell if they die? I don't get that. Then you get the ones who add exceptions, like baptized babies don't go to hell but unbaptised ones do. I don't get that either.
A baby hasn't sinned. A baby doesn't know what sin is, much less hell or God. This is just -- to me -- one of the strangest things about some Christian religions.
It doesn't make sense.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Ralph]

"It is our weakness that makes it necessary for God to rescue us, not sin inherited from Adam, but sin that we all produce by breaking the laws of God." Ralph

Nevermind that this quote and many others are DIRECTLY OPPOSITE of what the Bible says. I love how you post scriptures that say one thing and then go about infusing your belief into the scripture. There are some scriptures that require reading several passages to arrive at the meaning, the ones you have quoted are pretty clear. It is impossible for an imperfect man to produce perfect children. The Bible says 'the wage sin pays is death.' If you cannot die, you are perfect. How about you go outside and walk in front of a car and tell us about your experience later today. Jesus was 'screened off in the belly' of his mother so he was shielded from inherited sin as his conception and birth was a miracle and CANNOT be compared to our birth. If you are human being living on this earth today, you are a sinner. It is unfortunate that you have allowed yourself to digest a teaching or doctrine that can only lead you to failure. If you do not believe you are a sinner and are in need of forgiveness then are already at a great spiritual disadvantage. You are saying the sacrifice of Christ is null and void in your case.

Please present the passages of text that this statement contradicts, as its conclusions were drawn from the pages of scripts. Book, chapter, and verse. How can the baptism of an infant be justified when that infant has no cognation of reason as to why they are being baptized? When that same child does not have the ability of repenting or turning from sin, what are they supposed to turn away from, the act of being born? As I said the example of what a sin is and how it effects mankind is given in the very first book of the Bible....Genesis. Notice that neither Adam nor Eve were charged with anything until they came to have the "KNOWLEDGE" of what constitutes a "SIN". When they had not the knowledge there was no Sin. The same principal example can be applied to all life. Sin does not exist until the knowledge of it exists, thus just as is recored in the scriptures, "...sin is the breaking of the Law", and no one can breach that which they do have cognation of reason to understand. Thus the quote, "Blessed are poor of Spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven", any one that is mentally challenged does not have the mental cognation of reason to understand between the goods and the evils of this world, just as a child does not have this ability. (Deut. 1:35-39, Isaiah 7:15-16).

An infant can not understand "words spoken to them by which they can be saved" as exampled in the scriptures in (Acts 11:14), babies can not understand the spoken word...thus it does not matter how many time they are dunked underwater or sprinkled, they might as well be given a bath. Baptism is for those who have repented of their Sins (Acts 2:38).

(Mark 16:16) clearly states ".....he who has disbelieved shall be condemned". Can an infant disbelieve? Do they possess this ability to reason? What is very apparent is the fact that there are many "INFANTS" of the Christian faith, as they can not yet stand the strong meat of TRUTH that is presented in scripture as to be considered an adult in understanding, as they simply spit the truth back upon those that feed it them. (R)

[underdawg]

So if people are not aware of sin and are fully aware and live in a culture that has never been exposed to Christianity, are they like a baby and without sin? If so wouldn't they be better off if they were never exposed to Christianity?

[piratemonkey]

The doctrine of original sin is purely a doctrine created by man and cannot be substantiated biblically.


Really?


Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Psalm 51:5

Seems pretty clear to me....
; )
Cheers!

[dogetahi]

No one goes to Hell--its a mythical place.

[ViolaLee]

No one goes to Hell--its a mythical place.
The voice of reason! :clapper:

[BoogyMan]

The doctrine of original sin is purely a doctrine created by man and cannot be substantiated biblically.


Really?


Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Psalm 51:5

Seems pretty clear to me....
; )
Cheers!


Go read the book of Ezekiel and you will see that I am not held guilty of the sins of my father PM. As was stated previously, original sin is not in the bible.

[Tsky]

The doctrine of original sin is purely a doctrine created by man and cannot be substantiated biblically.


Really?


Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Psalm 51:5

Seems pretty clear to me....
; )
Cheers!


Go read the book of Ezekiel and you will see that I am not held guilty of the sins of my father PM. As was stated previously, original sin is not in the bible.



Boogey do you believe in the Bible or not? I find it difficult to believe that any sincere, thinking, common sense possessing human could read the Bible and walk away thinking that original sin is not taught in the scriptures.

Answer me this:

If Adam and Eve were created perfect and would have lived forever had they never eaten from the tree but yet the died because they ate from the tree, how can their offspring, who also die, have been born free of sin?

Are you following me? If you are I are without sin, why do we die and why did Jesus come to Earth?

Just to give you a hint, the bible says Jesus came to 'buy back' what Adam lost. What did Adam lose? Was it the abillity to live forever and pass that right on to his children? If because of Adam we lost our 'perfection' how can you say we aren't born sinners? If we aren't born sinners do you know of any man who was 'born sinless' and also continued their life as a sinless adult, besides Ralph of course, whom I suspect didn't survive his brief run into busy traffic nor his encounter with the 4 year old a tricycle...

[Newscaster]

So, if I murder someone, if all sins are alike, and I face punishment, I should get the same treatment as a guy who jay walks or crosses against the light. Does that make any sense to anyone. Sincs are man made and the men who make the various acts siinful, are men who have a marginal education and in my estimation, dont have a proverbial clue except that if they get people to okay the seriousness of the alleged sin, they, (The sin writers) gain some measure of power within their community.
In law today, look up the term ENTRAPMENT and see if putting that alleged apple in front of Adan and Eve was not a form of entrapment all by itself and as such, illegal and not admissible in court. I think most sins or at least alleged sin becase so because the creator of that particular sin happened to get his shorts in an uproar for some reason or another and thus....a sin was born and for no otherr reason.
I dont buy the entire theory of original sin and the guy who came up wih it must have been a real sweetheart. :fight:

[Tsky]

So, if I murder someone, if all sins are alike, and I face punishment, I should get the same treatment as a guy who jay walks or crosses against the light. Does that make any sense to anyone. Sincs are man made and the men who make the various acts siinful, are men who have a marginal education and in my estimation, dont have a proverbial clue except that if they get people to okay the seriousness of the alleged sin, they, (The sin writers) gain some measure of power within their community.
In law today, look up the term ENTRAPMENT and see if putting that alleged apple in front of Adan and Eve was not a form of entrapment all by itself and as such, illegal and not admissible in court. I think most sins or at least alleged sin becase so because the creator of that particular sin happened to get his shorts in an uproar for some reason or another and thus....a sin was born and for no otherr reason.
I dont buy the entire theory of original sin and the guy who came up wih it must have been a real sweetheart. :fight:


Spoken like a true non Bible reader/believer.

1. Human laws have nothing to do with the original sin concept.

2. You cannot entrap a perfect person.

3. I didn't expect you to address any of the points I made in my last post as it would require actually reading and understanding the Bible. As such, may I suggest that you limit your debate to evolution and atheism, that suits you much better.

[Newscaster]

T-Sky, your assessment of my reading material is amazing. How come I never saw you around my house and in my study checking up on me. Well, your view of my reading habits are the least of my problems.
Now just a few quick notes........something about original sin not being part of human law. Who do you think came up with the idea of original sin....Darth Vador. It came from a human m an just as you came from a human man and woman. God only wrote 10 (Ten) laws and they are called Comm andments. All others are man-made.
Not, you say you cannot entrap a perfect man. Do you realy think the word entrapmednt existed two or three thousand years ago? It did not. Even to discuss the concept of entrapment, you need a legal education and as far as I know, there were no biblical law schools back then.
You know T-sky, religion, organized or other wise, has been the cause of 98 percent of the world's woes and troubles but never once has it cause peace to break out. Never has it ended a war. Oraganized religion is a manifestation of the hunt for power but I am certain you wont understand that concept. But you seem to think I should do readings in atheisim and evolution. Actually I have read quite a lot about those two issues and yet, I am still a believer and fully authorized God-fearing Jew but I dont wear my faith on my sleeve and go around convincing people how pious I am or that I know more than anyone else. I believe Jesus had a few things to say about arrogance. As for evolution, my readings in that subject combined with your postings have taught me one thing.......I believe that descending from apes might be possible.
And now ask yourself one question, T-Sky......do you think Jesus wouild approve of the way you relate to your fellow man or might he have a totally different attitude?

[BoogyMan]

Boogey do you believe in the Bible or not? I find it difficult to believe that any sincere, thinking, common sense possessing human could read the Bible and walk away thinking that original sin is not taught in the scriptures.

Answer me this:

If Adam and Eve were created perfect and would have lived forever had they never eaten from the tree but yet the died because they ate from the tree, how can their offspring, who also die, have been born free of sin?

Are you following me? If you are I are without sin, why do we die and why did Jesus come to Earth?

Just to give you a hint, the bible says Jesus came to 'buy back' what Adam lost. What did Adam lose? Was it the abillity to live forever and pass that right on to his children? If because of Adam we lost our 'perfection' how can you say we aren't born sinners? If we aren't born sinners do you know of any man who was 'born sinless' and also continued their life as a sinless adult, besides Ralph of course, whom I suspect didn't survive his brief run into busy traffic nor his encounter with the 4 year old a tricycle...


Prove to me that I am guilty of the sin of Adam. Not that Adam's action brought about change, but that I am guilty of the sin of Adam. Do this with scripture and we can talk. I NEVER said we are without sin, I said that we are NOT guilty of the sin of Adam as is stated in the man-made doctrine of original sin.

[Tsky]

Boogey do you believe in the Bible or not? I find it difficult to believe that any sincere, thinking, common sense possessing human could read the Bible and walk away thinking that original sin is not taught in the scriptures.

Answer me this:

If Adam and Eve were created perfect and would have lived forever had they never eaten from the tree but yet the died because they ate from the tree, how can their offspring, who also die, have been born free of sin?

Are you following me? If you are I are without sin, why do we die and why did Jesus come to Earth?

Just to give you a hint, the bible says Jesus came to 'buy back' what Adam lost. What did Adam lose? Was it the abillity to live forever and pass that right on to his children? If because of Adam we lost our 'perfection' how can you say we aren't born sinners? If we aren't born sinners do you know of any man who was 'born sinless' and also continued their life as a sinless adult, besides Ralph of course, whom I suspect didn't survive his brief run into busy traffic nor his encounter with the 4 year old a tricycle...


Prove to me that I am guilty of the sin of Adam. Not that Adam's action brought about change, but that I am guilty of the sin of Adam. Do this with scripture and we can talk. I NEVER said we are without sin, I said that we are NOT guilty of the sin of Adam as is stated in the man-made doctrine of original sin.


I guess I am confused on what concept of original sin you take issue with. The concept of original sin, which is in scripture, is that you and I do not possess the ability to be perfect or live forever because our father, Adam, was a sinner. Likewise, had our father, Adam, remained sinless, we would have remained sinless also. That is not to say that some individuals would not have chosen to sin in time but we would have been born, free of sin and death. (Adam and Eve were born sinless and yet chose to sin, likewise Satan and his demons were created perfect but yet chose to sin, the bible does not teach that we don't have a choice, we clearly have a choice.) Back on topic, just like you inherited traits from your mother and father that you will pass on to your children the same is true with our first parents. You cannot cook bread in a dented pan and expect that some of the bread will come out without the dent, all of the bread will be dented.

I do not know what you mean when you say that 'we are not guilty of the sin of Adam' because that is not even debateable; none of us ate from the tree. We are however sinners because of Adam and that is solidly founded in scripture.

[Deadshot]

Tsky, you MUST be Catholic!:lmao:

I have to agree with Boogy here. The Original sin concept is a dogma thing. I simply cannot believe that, as the Catholic church does, a baby can be born at 0700:00 and somehow die at 0700:10, ten seconds later, and they have the stain of sin on their souls.

I have A LOT of problems with Biblical texts, as Boogy will tell you, but I don't think you'll find ANYWHERE a quote that says baby's carry Original Sin from birth. You'll find it in Catholic Dogma in the 1200's. And since all Christian churches branched out from the Catholic tree it may be elsewhere...but don't believe it.

[BoogyMan]

I guess I am confused on what concept of original sin you take issue with. The concept of original sin, which is in scripture, is that you and I do not possess the ability to be perfect or live forever because our father, Adam, was a sinner. Likewise, had our father, Adam, remained sinless, we would have remained sinless also.

Hi Tsky and thanks for jumping back in here.

Original sin is a doctrine created by man (Chiefly from the writings of Augustine of Hippo) that claims that we all suffer the guilt of Adam's sins through the a process of total hereditary depravity. In other words it claims the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to us.

Adam did choose to sin and was dealt with by God for his own actions. I am not now nor will I ever be guilty of the sin of Adam or anyone else other than myself.

That is not to say that some individuals would not have chosen to sin in time but we would have been born, free of sin and death. (Adam and Eve were born sinless and yet chose to sin, likewise Satan and his demons were created perfect but yet chose to sin, the bible does not teach that we don't have a choice, we clearly have a choice.) Back on topic, just like you inherited traits from your mother and father that you will pass on to your children the same is true with our first parents. You cannot cook bread in a dented pan and expect that some of the bread will come out without the dent, all of the bread will be dented.

Show me scripture that claims I am guilty of sin other than that which I have committed Tsky.

I do not know what you mean when you say that 'we are not guilty of the sin of Adam' because that is not even debateable; none of us ate from the tree. We are however sinners because of Adam and that is solidly founded in scripture.


We are sinners because we choose to sin, Adam was simply the first so to do.

[Newscaster]

Original sin means a Jewish girl did not marry a doctor. As far as guilt is concerned, only Jewish Mothers experience guilt and work their entire lives seeking to inflict similar guilt on the sons for not calling or writing. As for living forever.......Jewish mother in law's Jewish mother-in law have been living forever forever. Its not a new biblical or diabolical thing. And the only thing religious about it is the number of times one might say "DAMN!"
New born babies are no more sinners than Sesame Street's Cookie Monster. And if tragedy should strike and a newborn should die, its not because Adam took a bite of an apple. And if you should like to dispute me on that, my information comes from a Catholic Monsignor who I am fairly certain has read the bible more times than everbody else here combined.
Just look at the atmosphere that is created by religious disputes. Don't you just love ecumenism?

[Tsky]

I guess I am confused on what concept of original sin you take issue with. The concept of original sin, which is in scripture, is that you and I do not possess the ability to be perfect or live forever because our father, Adam, was a sinner. Likewise, had our father, Adam, remained sinless, we would have remained sinless also.

Hi Tsky and thanks for jumping back in here.

Original sin is a doctrine created by man (Chiefly from the writings of Augustine of Hippo) that claims that we all suffer the guilt of Adam's sins through the a process of total hereditary depravity. In other words it claims the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to us.

Adam did choose to sin and was dealt with by God for his own actions. I am not now nor will I ever be guilty of the sin of Adam or anyone else other than myself.

That is not to say that some individuals would not have chosen to sin in time but we would have been born, free of sin and death. (Adam and Eve were born sinless and yet chose to sin, likewise Satan and his demons were created perfect but yet chose to sin, the bible does not teach that we don't have a choice, we clearly have a choice.) Back on topic, just like you inherited traits from your mother and father that you will pass on to your children the same is true with our first parents. You cannot cook bread in a dented pan and expect that some of the bread will come out without the dent, all of the bread will be dented.

Show me scripture that claims I am guilty of sin other than that which I have committed Tsky.

I do not know what you mean when you say that 'we are not guilty of the sin of Adam' because that is not even debateable; none of us ate from the tree. We are however sinners because of Adam and that is solidly founded in scripture.


We are sinners because we choose to sin, Adam was simply the first so to do.


BoogeyMan - Are you saying it is possible for a human to remain sinless? If you believe that to be the case please provide an example. I believe when it comes to the issue of whether or not you are a sinner, you have no choice but to be born a sinner. Your sinful parents, from Adam and Eve onward, cannot produce perfect offspring. Now how you chose to live your life is up to you. You can PRACTICE sin or you can strive to live as good a life as possible knowing that you although you cannot remain sinless, you do not have to practice sin. You DO have that choice. However, if you believe you are a descendant of Adam then you must also believe you were born in sin, it doesn't make sense any other way.

Boogey - Read Romans 5:6-14. Not only does it tell us the reason Jesus died for us but it also tells us why he had to die for us and from whose sin he is releasing us.

You get sick, you grow old and you die. Why? Because you have inherited the sin of your father, Adam, Jesus came to give his perfect life to buy back what Adam lost. There would be no need for Christ to come had we not ALL been slaves to sin. In the future Christ promises to restore things to their original conditions and that includes giving you the ability to live eternally. If you were not born in sin, what was the apostle Paul talking about in the above scripture and please us tell why in the world Jesus came here in the first place?

Thanks,

Tsky

[BoogyMan]

BoogeyMan - Are you saying it is possible for a human to remain sinless? If you believe that to be the case please provide an example. I believe when it comes to the issue of whether or not you are a sinner, you have no choice but to be born a sinner. Your sinful parents, from Adam and Eve onward, cannot produce perfect offspring. Now how you chose to live your life is up to you. You can PRACTICE sin or you can strive to live as good a life as possible knowing that you although you cannot remain sinless, you do not have to practice sin. You DO have that choice. However, if you believe you are a descendant of Adam then you must also believe you were born in sin, it doesn't make sense any other way.

I never claimed that a man will remain sinless Tsky, there has only been one man who has done so and he died so that we might be able to obtain remission of our sins.

If we are born with the stain of sin, why is it that man is instructed to become as a little child in Matthew 18 so that we might enter the kingdom of heaven?

Boogey - Read Romans 5:6-14. Not only does it tell us the reason Jesus died for us but it also tells us why he had to die for us and from whose sin he is releasing us.

You are arguing against yourself here Tsky as I have always agreed that man sins. The sticking point is whether or not we are born with the stain of sin already upon us.

You get sick, you grow old and you die. Why? Because you have inherited the sin of your father, Adam, Jesus came to give his perfect life to buy back what Adam lost.

You have yet to show me where I am guilty of the sin of Adam, Tsky. I have pointed out the clear teaching of Ezekiel where it shows that I am guilty of only MY sin, not the sin of others.

There would be no need for Christ to come had we not ALL been slaves to sin. In the future Christ promises to restore things to their original conditions and that includes giving you the ability to live eternally. If you were not born in sin, what was the apostle Paul talking about in the above scripture and please us tell why in the world Jesus came here in the first place?

This is an argument against your own strawman Tsky. As I noted before, man sins. I will not accept, however, that we inherit the sins of others. It is a false and pernicious doctrine that is easily refuted and shows the folly of man. Certainly Christ came that man might have the hope of eternal salvation, that is a given. It does not, however, prove your assertion that a child is born with the stain of sin.

[Tsky]

BoogeyMan - Are you saying it is possible for a human to remain sinless? If you believe that to be the case please provide an example. I believe when it comes to the issue of whether or not you are a sinner, you have no choice but to be born a sinner. Your sinful parents, from Adam and Eve onward, cannot produce perfect offspring. Now how you chose to live your life is up to you. You can PRACTICE sin or you can strive to live as good a life as possible knowing that you although you cannot remain sinless, you do not have to practice sin. You DO have that choice. However, if you believe you are a descendant of Adam then you must also believe you were born in sin, it doesn't make sense any other way.

I never claimed that a man will remain sinless Tsky, there has only been one man who has done so and he died so that we might be able to obtain remission of our sins.

If we are born with the stain of sin, why is it that man is instructed to become as a little child in Matthew 18 so that we might enter the kingdom of heaven?

Boogey - Read Romans 5:6-14. Not only does it tell us the reason Jesus died for us but it also tells us why he had to die for us and from whose sin he is releasing us.

You are arguing against yourself here Tsky as I have always agreed that man sins. The sticking point is whether or not we are born with the stain of sin already upon us.

You get sick, you grow old and you die. Why? Because you have inherited the sin of your father, Adam, Jesus came to give his perfect life to buy back what Adam lost.

You have yet to show me where I am guilty of the sin of Adam, Tsky. I have pointed out the clear teaching of Ezekiel where it shows that I am guilty of only MY sin, not the sin of others.

There would be no need for Christ to come had we not ALL been slaves to sin. In the future Christ promises to restore things to their original conditions and that includes giving you the ability to live eternally. If you were not born in sin, what was the apostle Paul talking about in the above scripture and please us tell why in the world Jesus came here in the first place?

This is an argument against your own strawman Tsky. As I noted before, man sins. I will not accept, however, that we inherit the sins of others. It is a false and pernicious doctrine that is easily refuted and shows the folly of man. Certainly Christ came that man might have the hope of eternal salvation, that is a given. It does not, however, prove your assertion that a child is born with the stain of sin.



I don't wish to argue with you. If the Bible can't answer your questions then I certainly can't. How you could read the scripture I provided and then come back talking about 'strawman' is beyond me. :ponder: That scripture answered your question very clearly but it seems you are more interested in being right than in actually wanting to know the truth.

If you weren't born in sin then when do you become sinful? Have you ever heard of SIDS? Do you not not know that the Bible says, 'the wages sin pays is death.' If babies are without sin, there would be no such thing as crib death because only sinners die. I am not retorting theories by 2nd century theologists I am stating facts as are found in scripture. If you think a child isn't born into sin then please explain why Christ had to be 'screened off' in the 'belly of his mother' so as not to inherit her sins?

You were born a sinner, that is a fact. There are other far more indepth scriptural principles that can be debated but this one is pretty obvious. I think you should let go of your own theories and start accepting the truth, then you can move on from drinking milk and get down to more solid truths that are found in scripture.

I should also add that the 'theory' you should reject is the lie that there is a burning hell where 'bad' people are sent after they die. Neither babies nor humans burn in hell so the question itself