Where does it say in the bible we inherit original sin?

Momma Angel, I do not think that's all there is in the Bible, but I do question Christians who pick and choose which verses to believe and which to ignore.

I'm still waiting for your response to points I brought up.

Terry,

I am still working on the passages I had left unaddresed. It's been a bit crazy here at the cat shelter the past couple of days so I haven't been able to do as much researching as I intend to do.

Your allegations that Christ broke the laws of the Ten Commandments is very serious. I intend to address them fully.

You don't think that's all there is in the Bible? You lost me?

Do they ignore them or do they address them and you just don't accept the explanation? :wink:

That was a response to your last post to me:

I understand about being busy. Hopefully you are busy adopting out cats and not getting inundated with unwanted "Christmas presents."

Yes, been busy adopting and rescuing cats. Found homes for 7 just this week!

I got the same Christmas present I get every year, Terry. My husband buys me two Christmas bears from Wal-Mart. I collect them and that's all I want. :wink:

I am glad to hear you believe there is more to the Bible than just those constantly used examples. It seems that some don't realize there is more. [/b]

That's not actually true. The last person that walked on the face of this earth that was without sin - was assumed into heaven. She didn't die.

Mary, the Mother of Jesus was concieved without sin.

Would you happen to have some reference for that?

The Dogma of The Immaculate Conception. Check the link

Immaculate Conception

Sorry, don't follow the Catholic's view on Mary at all. I do appreciate your response though.

Hi Momma Angel.
Quote..(don't follow the catholic view on Mary at all).. unquote. To me... it seems, you are saying... your "view's" on their bit of religion ( the Catholics bit ) negates their "view"?. Perhaps the word "belief " should of been used instead of "view", though I suppose even "think" would be better?... Nick 17's point ...." I THINK" is quite right and there are a lot more Catholics out there that think other than the way you do....sooooo the numbers have it...umpteen millions to one makes them right and you wrong ( isn't that the way religion works )

Nice to hear you are looking after the cat's in your area. In my country they are a menace, where I live, we have a lot of flowering trees, which attract a large number of wild bird life... the local domestic cats have a great time killing them off, ( not for food either, they are all over fed ) I however am on the birds side, and take great delight every time I manage to kill one.

Also have a guy in the outer suburbs, that catches them and skins them for their fur.. that really gets up the nose of the cat lovers, but it's quite legal as cat's are supposed to be caged or indoors, to protect wild life. As it should be.

You seem intelligent.

lightfoot,

No, that is not what I am saying at all. If it appeared that way nick17, I sincerely didn't mean that.

I have no problem with the differences in the views in Christianity and the Christians that have them. No problem at all. I just simply meant I do not believe the same about Mary as the Catholics do. No harmful intent or thought ever entered my mind.

As to the cat statements ~

Hey.. not a problem Momma.
Just it seems soooo funny when one reads how the very religious tend to "put down" other religions, yet at the same time they all have absolutely nothing but the same Old book to base their religion on, and can carry on about what they "feel" and how they "Know" and that if one takes up their "beliefs" how they will be rewarded by some mystical thingo, that will get em into some mythological place "up there"??.
I have two very dear relations who are Seventh Day Adventist, they absolutely hate the Catholics, they say they are heathens, as they worship Idols. I reckon if they were called up into a Seventh Day Army, told to go get rid of them Idol worshiping Catholics, they would be there with their machine guns strapped to their shoulders ... singing the praise of their lord as they dashed over the trenches... even at seventy years of age, and I'm not kidding.

lightfoot,

Oh, I believe you! I listen to a Christian Chat room and let me tell you, if some on these threads think I am a fundamentalist I'm not sure what they would call some of those in the room.

They be casting out demons and rebuking the Satanic spirits in others! I'm telling you, the first time I heard all that, it scared the hell out of me!

And the Catholics? Oh yeah! I have never heard anyone say some of the things they do about Catholicism. I may not agree with the Catholic doctrine but there is no way I would treat them with anything but the respect due them or others.

I guess that's why I get a bit miffed when I am accused of being such a fundamentalist, etc. I keep thinking, if they only knew!

I don't have a problem just agreeing to disagree with anyone. :wink:

echi.
Wouldn't say intelligent, but like to call a spade a spade.

Yeah. You're right. I take it back.

The first few chapters of Genesis are largely written from the POV of the observer/writer (whomever that might have been is actually irrelevant)--neither from Adam and Eve's view, nor God's--and not even the serpent (the necessary adversary--the catalyst).

It's a seemingly simple enough narrative--on the surface. But the book of Genesis (or rather up until the time of Noah) is just as deep as Revelation--no doubt the rest of the bible is multi-layered and rich for discovery by anyone with an open mind--but the first and last books are a pair--they are allegorical in nature--

--which does not mean a 'parable' or even ?'fiction' (vs. ?'non-fiction') but means exactly this:

figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another; a presentation of one subject under the guise of another; a presentation of an abstract or spiritual meaning under concrete or material forms; a symbolical narrative.

Now, even if I talk about what these books really mean, from my personal understanding, to someone else--I cannot get away from some sort of allegorical communication--although, in my mind, I understand it in its literal form--but this form is spiritual and totally abstract, not able to be fitted properly with words in its pure definition, and therefore not something one can tell another without using an illustration using material concepts in order to communicate. And reading the material stories will never quite get you all the way there--but they are a start. And then at some point in time, it will begin to clarify?-but for the general religious population, the potential for individual clarity is voluntarily curtailed by subscription to illogical (but ?'approved') dogma. The mind must be both open and without any pre-decision of any sort.

'The fall' is the 'fall from consciousness'--and the restoration is what is written of in Revelation?-the ?'resurrection' is not the mass production of zombies at some point in the future, it is the ?'revival' of the human spirit: consciousness. ?'The resurrection of the dead' refers not to human corpses, but to the part of Adam and Eve that did die, that very day, just as God had said. That was ?'the first death'?-the death of the human spirit, which corresponds to the ?'first resurrection' mentioned in Revelation. Then, 930 years later, Adam died ?'the second death,' as also mentioned in Revelation. The death of his ?'living soul.' From this perspective, all humans are born ?'dead.'

?'Those participating in the first resurrection will not be hurt by the second death.'

The books of Genesis and Revelation instruct on the transitions from non-aware consciousness to fleshly mortality--and then from fleshly mortality to fully aware consciousness. ?'Life to death' and ?'death to life.' This life is not the brief duration of individual carbon-based mortality that is generally considered ?'life'; and often ?'the only life we'll ever have'?-it is unrestricted in any way outside of its own created limitations.

Adam and Eve were clothed with skin. (original sin took place)



Many interpret this as ?'God killed animals and put the skins on Adam and Eve.' But to say this requires an assumption beyond what we are given in the story, itself. It is implied and is not supported by scripture. It is, however an easy explanation which precludes questioning, and engenders the confusion rooted in ideas such as ?'original sin.'

In scripture ?'flesh' and ?'skin' are two different things?-skin is that which ?'hides'?-and the meaning in this case is that skin hides us from God and even from each other. The ?'skin' is the ?'veil of the temple.' Skin also is ?'sin' that we are all born into, without exception. This is the idea behind ?'the wages of sin are death.'
?'Flesh' is underneath?-materially muscle and what-not, and also our ?'soul' which is carried in our blood.

Think about this--we are not 'sinners' because we 'sin'. We 'sin' because we are 'sinners.'

Now read that again with 'sinner' replaced by 'a being unaware of the consciousness which is God' and 'sin' replaced by 'not listening to God.'

We have bodies that grow from babies, to adults, maturing to wise elders. (hopefully, LOL)

Same with our soul--that soul is a 'fetus' unaware of its parent. Then the soul is 'born'--emerging into consciousness through life given directly from the parent's life. The soul grows from a child, to an adult, and finally into a mature, self-governing spirit. The biblical idea of ?'seed,' further defined in Genesis as ?'its seed within itself,' is the human soul. Spiritual seed.

'Sin,' in the non-legalistic conception is basically ?'self-orientation.' It is the delusion of being an entity defined, limited, and separated by the barrier which is skin. The barrier makes us think what we do only affects ourselves, or maybe just a small circle around us. It hides the truth of unity of all things that exist, from rocks to trees to birds to people to spirits and finally, to God. Everything is energy?-in either the form of heat or work. ?'Spirit' is heat; ?'matter' is work. Ego and self-serving behavior are blindness and sin, but the golden rule is a stepping stone to realizing the bond that connects all life. All life is just one life. One we all share, and once realized, sin is overcome.

How did a cruel human execution free us from original sin? How was Jesus ?'born free from sin?' He was not born deluded by the false separation and illusion that is the essential ?'human condition,' as the rest of us are. He saw past groups, prejudice, judgment, and segregation. It may seem as if ?'God is cruel to demand a blood sacrifice for sin,' and I did have problems with that, when I began to examine and question such a thing. But Christ gave His human life in order to give us back our spirit life. He gave us back the life that Adam forfeited. Human life is indeed precious, but not because it is all there is. ?'Christ' is the intersection of material and spiritual reality join once again?-the fusion of ?'man' and ?'god' which is nothing more than restoration to full existence. He laid down His human life as ?'earnest on the promise'--His living soul which actually became the ?'ghost' that He gave up at death and which is free to join (in a permanent bond of ?'marriage') with any other ?'living human soul' (bride) in order to guide, nourish, love, and protect them?-the ?'Holy Spirit.'

Do you really think anyone will read all of that?

I don't think about it like that.

Either they will or they won't. But if I didn't post it then no one had the chance to decide whether or not to read it--and then to choose to consider the things I said--or not.

It was not something explainable in '50 words or less,' that's why most standard apologetic replies are compacted for the specific purpose of mass distribution.

But I never apologize for God because there is a viable alternative.

I did.




Brilliant!

Thanks, Echi!