Print

Author Topic: Original Sin Paradox?  (Read 14274 times)

« on: May 03, 2010, 05:12:44 AM »
According to Christianity, humans are inherently sinful. Original sin is humanity's state of sin resulting from the Fall of Man. However, our rebellion against God cannot be the cause of our sinful nature, because for said rebellion to occur we must have had a sinful nature to begin with. Did God intentionally make us sinful?
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2010, 06:03:04 AM »
No.

What he did was create us with a choice to choose "God" or "not God."  Even without sinful nature, man was not flawless (if they were perfect, they would be God).  Therefore, it was inevitable that eventually someone would've chosen "not God," even if Adam and Eve hadn't (the fact that they did so as early on as they did is a testament to humanity's selfish desire to be its own god).  The rebellion caused the sinful nature, but the ability to make the choice to rebel did necessitate one.
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2010, 07:09:28 AM »
1. Why did God give us a choice? More importantly, why did God create intentionally flawed creations?
2. Is rebellion against God sinful?
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2010, 09:23:16 AM »
1. Why did God give us a choice? More importantly, why did God create intentionally flawed creations?
God gave us a choice because He wanted us to choose to love and obey Him.  But a man without the influence of God will inevitably choose himself over God.

Also, perhaps "flawed" wasn't the best term to use.  A better word would've been "infallible"; the point being that no creation of God could ever be perfect in the same way that He is.

2. Is rebellion against God sinful?
Yes.
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

Rao

  • Arr! Ay! Oh!
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2010, 12:24:29 PM »
I hate this thread.
What's your problem, Cambodian?

« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2010, 02:41:38 PM »
Cool story bro.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Glorb

  • Banned
« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2010, 07:24:40 PM »
I detect a lot of simmering rage underneath that sarcasm.
every

« Reply #7 on: May 03, 2010, 08:03:45 PM »
I have a bad feeling about this...

« Reply #8 on: May 03, 2010, 08:11:05 PM »
-_-
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Rao

  • Arr! Ay! Oh!
« Reply #9 on: May 03, 2010, 08:49:51 PM »
What's your problem, Cambodian?

Luigison

  • Old Person™
« Reply #10 on: May 04, 2010, 04:23:27 PM »
I'm going to go off on a tangent here, but creation as we know it would not exist in a perfect universe.  Without imperfections in the distribution of hydrogen in the early universe, stars and therefor heavier elements would never have formed.
“Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know."

Glorb

  • Banned
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2010, 03:02:24 PM »
What did that have to do with original sin, AT ALL

Jesus Christ, you guys are all the worst at trying to prove/disprove religious stuff. I'm starting to regret championing the creation of a specific politics/sensitive-issues board back in the day just because this place sucks so hard.
every

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2010, 12:53:14 AM »
What did that have to do with original sin, AT ALL
The idea is that before Adam and Eve sinned, the universe was perfect. Their sin brought all imperfection and brokenness into the world (including death, which is why there are theological wrinkles to be ironed out if you want to accept evolution, which requires a long trial-and-error period with lots of death). If there's some fundamental physical aspect of the universe that means it couldn't even exist if it were "perfect," then that literal interpretation can't be true. (This depends, of course, on what the definition of perfection and imperfection is -- variances from an established norm aren't automatically imperfect (c.f. the human race), and also if the universe being perfect would make it not exist, I think that would qualify as making it not perfect in that case.)
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2010, 02:04:03 AM »
By perfect, Luigison meant only one thing: homogeneity.

In the beginning, the universe was a totally even distribution of matter. Stars only form when denser areas attract more matter to themselves through their larger gravitational pulls, eventually becoming dense enough to ignite fusion. If every region of the universe stayed equally dense, stars would never form and thus no elements heavier than helium would ever form.

So why do we have a heterogeneous universe if it started out homogeneous? The universe was expanding at such an exponential rate that quantum fluctuations, temporary violations of the law of conservation that are constantly happening at the subatomic level (quantum foam), which normally wouldn't affect anything on the atomic scale became a factor because the universe itself was expanding at a faster rate than even the tiny lifespan of a quantum fluctuation. Thus, their "random" effects became permamently enshrined into the "real" world, starting slightly denser areas on the path to becoming superclusters, galaxies, and stars.

There's another more mysterious related issue: why wasn't there equal amounts of matter and antimatter? If the universe had stayed homogeneous in that regard, all matter would have annihilated itself and we'd be left with nothing but light. I don't think anyone has enough research evidence for there to be an agreed-upon explanation for this yet.

This, what Luigison was talking about, is the real [dukar]. Everything else posted by anybody in this thread has been pure bull [dukar].

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2010, 05:04:02 AM »
If you don't like religion or religious concepts, why on earth would you enter a thread with the word "sin" in the title?
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

Print