Print

Author Topic: Original Sin Paradox?  (Read 14272 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"

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2010, 08:52:04 AM »
Here's the real problem, which ties into the argument about original sin:

Turtlekid's religious arguments almost always involve taking stuff from the Old Testament literally. Most Christians aren't morons and don't literally interpret writings that, as should be quite obvious from some of the completely absurd things that happen in them, are allegorical in nature, particularly when referring to books like Genesis that completely go against common sense in addition to accepted scientific thought. Turtlekid's arguments are idiotic and asinine, and go against what most other Christians believe. And it should be clear by this point that he's not going to learn, so it's best to just ignore him and move along.

(I'm not saying some absurd stuff doesn't happen in the New Testament, but not nearly to the extent of what happens in the Old Testament. People didn't get turned into pillars of salt in the New Testament. Men didn't lose their strength because they got a haircut in the New Testament.)

« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2010, 12:29:10 PM »
Samson is my favorite dude in the Bible.

Luigison

  • Old Person™
« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2010, 05:12:57 PM »
If you don't like religion or religious concepts, why on earth would you enter a thread with the word "sin" in the title?
If you* don't like science or science concepts, why on earth would you enter a thread with the word "paradox" in the title?

The word paradox always gets my attention because there can be no real paradoxes.  Saying something is a paradox simply means we don't fully understand it and science is all about figuring things out. 

*I'm not referring to you specifically with this comment.  I just wanted to quote you to show the juxtaposition of the duality at hand. 

BTW, LD is correct.  The matter/antimatter conundrum also intrigues me.  As does the accelerated expansion.   
“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."

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2010, 11:13:00 AM »
so it's best to just ignore him and move along.
Then friggin' do that already instead of hanging around just to insult someone whose actual arguments you have no intention of ever addressing.
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #19 on: May 07, 2010, 12:05:28 PM »
You're yelling at the wrong person here. I normally avoid posting in these threads. I'm just sick of Turtlekid's stupidity making every other follower of the religion look bad and couldn't take it any longer.

Turtlekid's "actual arguments" thus far have been as follows:
-Taking Genesis literally
-Taking Genesis literally
-Asking why anyone who hates religion or religious concepts would look at a thread with "sin" in the title, ignoring numerous non-religious uses of the word

I see no real arguments here to be addressed. I just see someone who needs to get out of the house more.

« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2010, 12:08:09 PM »
Taking Genesis literally has a correlation with getting out of the house?
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #21 on: May 07, 2010, 12:15:54 PM »
Yes. The more you go outside and see the real world, the less you'll be inclined to take a book that's largely and obviously fictional literally.

Hopefully, anyway. Considering this is Turtlekid we're talking about, I'm not sure that would even work.

Rao

  • Arr! Ay! Oh!
« Reply #22 on: May 07, 2010, 12:55:34 PM »
Everybody believes what they want to believe, and nobody's going to make them change their minds.

So stop arguing about it.
What's your problem, Cambodian?

« Reply #23 on: May 07, 2010, 01:24:11 PM »
Yes. The more you go outside and see the real world, the less you'll be inclined to take a book that's largely and obviously fictional literally.

Actually, now that you mention it, that's how I became irreligious. :/
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

« Reply #24 on: May 07, 2010, 02:17:04 PM »
Try telling that to history's greatest Christian minds.
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

« Reply #25 on: May 07, 2010, 03:52:36 PM »
I'm not sure such a thing exists. Basing your worldview on a 2000 year old "I swear I'm still a virgin" story doesn't say great mind to me.

But you did say "greatest", so I suppose it's not technically an oxymoron.

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #26 on: May 07, 2010, 03:56:13 PM »
Regardless, a bunch of dead Europeans are irrelevant to an argument in the present day.

« Reply #27 on: May 07, 2010, 04:14:52 PM »
Regardless, a bunch of dead Europeans are irrelevant to an argument in the present day.

Why? They brought more insight into the world than either of us ever will.

Besides, a mind can never be great, or even properly functional, if the soul which controls it doesn't acknowledge God.
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #28 on: May 07, 2010, 04:19:11 PM »
Explain the ancient Greeks, then.

« Reply #29 on: May 07, 2010, 04:19:21 PM »
There is no such thing as a magical soul that controls a mind. A mind is just a mind. A machine made of meat.


Print