Nature and the fall of man

The Book of Genesis.What you fail to grasp is that the label "Original Sin" need not be used for Jewish groups to believe that Adam and Eve were real and commited the original human sin.

Ramoss, your source has a poor understanding of Christianity. Your source seems to think hyper-Calvinism is the only version of Christianity, and some aspects of Catholocism, and even among Catholics, they don't all hold to the extreme form of Original Sin proposed by your sources. That is not a contrast with most Christian beliefs concerning Original Sin, and in fact, if Jews believe that, they believe in Original Sin because they believe people have both a good and bad inclination in them.This message has been edited by randman, 12-29-2005 06:02 PM

Asqara, your sources are just incorrect in many respects. For example, Baptists and Assemblies of God do hold to a form of Original Sin. I attended a Baptist seminary, and they very much hold to Original Sin.This a taken from the Assemblies of God official site concerning their official doctrines. Assemblies of God (USA) Official Web Site | AGYOur source just isn't aware enough of basic Christianity to be reliable in it's opinion.This message has been edited by randman, 12-29-2005 06:12 PM

Ramoss source indicated Jews believe in Original Sin because they believe people are born with bad inclinations as well as good. You wouldn't expect them to call it by the same name necessarily, but they clearly state a belief in Original Sin.This message has been edited by randman, 12-29-2005 06:16 PM

wikapedia is a dubious source, but: Clearly, Jews beleive in a form of Original Sin, or some do, since there is good range there.What you and others fail to realize is very few people believe in the extreme form of Original Sin you equate as the doctrine itself. Some 5 point Calvinists hold to it, and they also argue that Jesus did not die for the sins of the world, but only the elect and things like that.Most "Reformed" folks are more 4-4.5 point Calvinists however.Original Sin is just the idea that we, as people, inherit a sin nature or tendency to do bad and are subject to illnesses and such as a result of Adam's sin.You and the evos here seem to be equating the doctrine of total depravity with the concept of Original Sin, and even those that hold to total depravity may still hold a form of it not so different than Jewish beliefs.

Sure, doesn't sound like it, nwr.Also, you seem to be confusing the Fall with the doctrine of Original Sin. Original Sin primarily refers to humanity, but the Fall includes all of the earth.

Reverend, you guys are talking about terms you do not understand. First off, the doctrine of total depravity can mean beleiving just that only God's grace draws someone to believing or all the way to beleiving unregenerate man is not capable of moral acts. That's a massive range for that one doctrinal idea alone.Original Sin is also an idea existing within a certain range. You guys seem completely unaware of that, and of the range among people that hold to Original Sin.

Ramoss, the article is inaccurate. The Jewish concept of sin is disobedience to the Law, but within Judaism, there is reconginition that man has a tendency and capacity for sin and so the position is really no different than the Arminian position which holds to Original Sin but not the Calvinistic version of total depravity.The problem is you are quoting some web-site as if it is authoritative when it isn/t.

Look, I am talking very basic stuff with you, and you are acting like you never heard it. It's like someone that doesn't recognize there is a difference between the terms, analogous and homologous in an evolution debate. It's really not my fault you don't know a minimal amount of theology in this area.Here are some links to various theologians or schools of theology that might be helpful.some historic documents relating to the Reformed traditionAugsburg confession The Augsburg Confessionfrom the 39 Articles he Thirty-Nine Articles (1572)from The Belgic Confession The Belgic ConfessionOk, let's look at Arminianism which from an outsider's perspective is Calvinistic and Reformed as well, but which deviates from some of the more pronounced versions of Calvinism.from the wika, always to be taken with a grain of salt though One of the articles of the Arminians which Reformed theologigians condemned as heresy because Reformed theology states Christ only died for the elect's sins not the sins of the whole world. 403 Forbidden A reaction from Reformed theologians. 403 Forbidden Note the references to Wesley who clearly states he believes in Original Sin, but since the Arminian version is not the same as the Reformed version, the Reformed camp says there are heretics, or used to (some obviously still do).But either way, both camps hold to Original Sin, and in many respects both are Calvinistic.Note also the references to Pelagius who had a big dispute with Augustine, and was consequently misrepresented imo, being branded a heretic falsely.http://www.brojed.org/pelagius.html#TextJust so you know, in general, I think the heretic thing in the Church is wrongheaded. I think Pelagius did overemphasize free will, but to call him a heretic is over-reaching and to call for persecution as Augustine did is completely against the Spirit of Christ, imo.This message has been edited by randman, 12-30-2005 12:36 AM

Look, if you can't see there is within one subset of Christianity, the heirs of Calvinism, in Reformed theologians and Arminian theologians and preachers like Wesley, there is no hope for you.Both hold to the doctrine of Original Sin, but one condemning the other version as heretical.From some of the sites you guys have quoted, it appears some sites think the doctrine of Original Sin only refers to the most extreme forms of it. Clearly, within the idea of Original Sin, there are camps with different emphases on free will, depravity, and election. If you take some time to educate yourself on that, you will be more able to at least understand what is and what isn't within the scope of "Original Sin."

Reverend, first off many of those Jewish sites are reacting to the Augustinian and Reformed versions of Original Sin, especially as historically Judaism was persecuted by Roman Catholicism and so sometimes "the Christian" concept of Original Sin to them is pretty much an extremist version of it.But if you actually know what Original Sin refers to, then it's pretty clear within Judiasm, there are similar beliefs, namely that Adam's sin did cause a lessening of mankind's state. So to say Judaism does not hold to any form of Original Sin is actually wrong, but not surprising Jewish sites would say that.One of the problems is some groups hold to the concept of Original Sin in the sense of God holding the sin against people. Arminius and others reacted to that, and advanced an idea that although Original Sin is there, only the actions of individuals are held against them, which is more in line with Judaism, but it's still a form of the doctrine of Original Sin.

The doctrine of Original Sin is that due to Adam's sin, mankind was made subject to diseases, defects, etc,...and that mankind was embedded with a sinful nature. That does not mean that mankind cannot do good deeds, or acheive goodness. What that does mean is if you say men are born with a capacity for good and evil, subject to diseases, imperfection, etc,...that essentially says the same thing as Original Sin.There are nuances among those that hold to Original Sin, and differences of opinion in Judaism about the effects of Adam's sin, but among those that accept Adam's sin and the Fall, some sort of doctrine or idea of Original Sin or ideas saying the same thing, are held.

Ramoss, it really doesn't matter how many sources you quote, if every single one of them quotes an inaccurate definition of Original Sin.What do you think they are referring to as Original Sin? What is Original Sin? Define the doctrine, and then we can talk.Edit to add: AdminPD, I hadn't read to the end of the thread before posting this. Note to Ramoss, you will have to start another thread to continue this.This message has been edited by randman, 01-01-2006 01:01 PM

Rrhain, you've been snookered by an urban myth. Watts never said that.The reason many Christians and conservatives oppossed federal land policy is that it essentially took away private property rights and did so without compensation. The truth is most Christian conservatives I know favor many environmental laws, such as limitations on development of certain wetlands, air pollution standards, etc,....At the same time, there have often been excesses in environmental policy, and some hardship placed by not onl environmental laws but local zoning rules that essentially make once valuable land worthless monetarily and though as a "community" we may benefit, it is at the expense of the landowner, sometimes a landowner that is otherwise poor.So there is and has been some injustice to government policies at different levels.

Faith's comment is on target as far as I am concerned.