Question 3 for Christians

[jallman]

There is a major difference. Karma is supposed to be because of your actions, not anyone else's.

Original sin is a concept that holds you responsible for something done by someone else.

Whats the difference if it is karma passed down by a spiritual lineage or original sin passed down through common linkage to humanity? Its still paying for mistakes made by another in another lifetime.

 

[Rev.]

He did not state what I was responding to as faith. He stated it as fact.

Pardon me...The thread title is "Question for Christians." then a series of questions. I assumed it meant the author was seeking the answers to those questions from a Christian perspective. I gave those answers.

When you engage a Christian in discussion, it must be assumed that they accept the Bible as authority. If you care to discuss my interpretation of those scriptures, that is one thing. But to disqualify my understanding of scripture because you believe they are a fairy-tale wasn't even the point.

And I will point out that another non-Christian responded and NOBODY made an issue of whether his response was FAITH based or FACT based. Which just shows how biased you are.

 

[Alex]

Why thank you. I just want to point out that I am very mindful that one of the problems with religion is that most religions become tainted with the irrelevant belief that conviction involves infliction of beliefs upon others. I am in direct opposition to that way of thinking...I detest evangelists with a passion. A conversation such as this serves just fine as a way of letting your light shine...there is no need to go knocking on doors or passing out pamphlets or inflicting your personal spiritual convictions upon public policy. Simply live your life with respect for others and others will notice that there is something peaceful about you. If they decide to question, then they are inviting your input and if they dont, then they obviously have it worked out for themselves and to disrupt that comfort is tantamount to sin in and of itself.

As an Atheist I am constantly being told that I can be "saved" and some Christians take it as a challenge. (Kind of like when women say I can be straight if only I was given a good, tight *****.) It drives me crazy. I am not saying that all are like this, of course. I have some close friends that leave me to my own beliefs. I have one who went to school to be a priest and has a very serious relationship with his god. We joke with each other about it and never take it too seriously. He wears a right side up crucifix around his neck and I wear an upside down one around mine. I ask him why his is upside down and he says I am wearing St. Peter on mine. How nice would it be for me if everyone were like this?

On the other hand, I know that there are many non-believers that try to push their lack-of-belief on the believers. I guess it is something we all just have to live with.

 

[Rev.]

There is a major difference. Karma is supposed to be because of your actions, not anyone else's.

Original sin is a concept that holds you responsible for something done by someone else.

Well, no, not exactly. Adam and Eve were both held seperately responsible for their part in taking the fruit...as was the serpent (a fact people seem to forget). I will not be punished for their sin and neither will you. Original Sin makes a man tendancy to sin kind of like a birth defect...everyone is born with an urge to sin. But there is a cure through the Holy Spirit.

 

[Rev.]

On the other hand, I know that there are many non-believers that try to push their lack-of-belief on the believers. I guess it is something we all just have to live with.

How true this is! Thank you!

 

[MrFungus420]

Whats the difference if it is karma passed down by a spiritual lineage or original sin passed down through common linkage to humanity? Its still paying for mistakes made by another in another lifetime.

If you believe in reincarnation, then you are responsible for what you have done. Nobody else is responsible for your actions. You are not responsible for another's actions.

With the concept of original sin, you are held responsible for the actions that were done by another.

From the Catholic Encyclopeida (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm): "Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam."

From Buddhist Studies (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm): "... it is the result of our own past actions and our own present doings. We ourselves are responsible for our own happiness and misery"

How can you not see the difference between the two? One is saying that you are being held responsible for something done by a (very) distant ancestor. The other is saying that you are responsible for your own actions.

So, if your great-great grandfather commited murder, according to the general concept of original sin, you should be held accountable. According to the concept of karma, he would be responsible for that murder, not you. You would only be held accountable for a murder that you committed.

 

[jallman]

If you believe in reincarnation, then you are responsible for what you have done. Nobody else is responsible for your actions. You are not responsible for another's actions.

You are still responsible in this life for an action which you did not take in this life. I see no difference.

With the concept of original sin, you are held responsible for the actions that were done by another.

From the Catholic Encyclopeida (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm): "Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam."

First of all, you are taking the most simplistic view of original sin. Original sin is the tendency of man to commit sin because of the original sin of taking of the fruit of the tree which God asked specifically for us not to take. It is more symbolic of our self inflicted loss of innocence as opposed to being representative of a purposeful action.

From Buddhist Studies (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm): "... it is the result of our own past actions and our own present doings. We ourselves are responsible for our own happiness and misery"

How can you not see the difference between the two? One is saying that you are being held responsible for something done by a (very) distant ancestor. The other is saying that you are responsible for your own actions.

Again, what is the difference between sin passed on from a kindred blood line and sin passed on from a kindred spiritual link? I see none. The end result is that in the here and now, if by karma or original sin, you have past other-life transgressions to work through.

So, if your great-great grandfather commited murder, according to the general concept of original sin, you should be held accountable.

If my great-grandfather committed murder, then he would be held accountable for that murder. However, his tendency to sin and commit that murder is the bond of original sin which we share through a kindred lineage to Adam.

According to the concept of karma, he would be responsible for that murder, not you. You would only be held accountable for a murder that you committed.

Not if I were the reincarnation of my great grandfather. It seems to me that karma is a bit more weighted toward burden than original sin is.

 

[AlbqOwl]

What does it mean to say we were all born with "original sin"? How can anyone who was just born have sinned? He didn't do anything yet! Why did God make the "ultimate blood sacrifice" - wouldn't a universal pardon have been just as good?

It would have been 'just as good' of course. It would not have been understood by a people immersed in a blood sacrifice culture however.

Anyway, this has probably already been said by somebody, but I have to go to choir practice and am way too lazy today to read the whole thread just now. But here's my understanding of 'sin' and 'original sin' which is by no means to be construed that I think I am the last word on the subject:

Strip away all the rituals and rules and human notions of right and wrong, and 'sin' can be boiled down to one concept: Sin is that which harms oneself or others. And because God does not wish us to be harmed, that is why He is against sin.

"Original sin" is sin that spoiled the perfection that would have existed had there been no sin. We read in the Bible that the 'sins of the fathers are visited on the children even to the fourth and fifth generatons.' Little did the writer know that the 'sins of the fathers' would be visited on future generations for millenia, not just generations.

The way that God seems to have set up the universe is that there is cause and effect, reward and consequence, for just about everything. The person who does something good may not be aware of any immediate personal benefit for his good deed, but it is my belief that it is the cumulative effect of good deeds or virtue that makes things better until things are very good.

Likewise, the person who does something bad may not be aware of any immediate personal detriment, but it is my belief that it is the cumulative effect of bad deeds or 'sin' that screws everything up for everybody. You have a generation of adults eating twinkiess and ho-hos, for instance, and the next generation(s) may experience all kinds of ailments that they might not otherwise have had. A little bit of toxins emitted into the water or soil or air may not be significant, but the cumulative effect of millions doing it is probably why were have certain cancers, breathing disorders, and other ailments.

I don't believe any of us are held accountable when we had nothing to do with the bad deed committed by another. But we might suffer the consequence of the other's sin through no fault of our own.

Like I said, because sin is bad for everybody, God is against it.

Okay that's my take on it for whatever it's worth. Now I'm off to choir practice. Play nice.

 

[Alex]

It would have been 'just as good' of course. It would not have been understood by a people immersed in a blood sacrifice culture however.

Anyway, this has probably already been said by somebody, but I have to go to choir practice and am way too lazy today to read the whole thread just now. But here's my understanding of 'sin' and 'original sin' which is by no means to be construed that I think I am the last word on the subject:

Strip away all the rituals and rules and human notions of right and wrong, and 'sin' can be boiled down to one concept: Sin is that which harms oneself or others. And because God does not wish us to be harmed, that is why He is against sin.

"Original sin" is sin that spoiled the perfection that would have existed had there been no sin. We read in the Bible that the 'sins of the fathers are visited on the children even to the fourth and fifth generatons.' Little did the writer know that the 'sins of the fathers' would be visited on future generations for millenia, not just generations.

The way that God seems to have set up the universe is that there is cause and effect, reward and consequence, for just about everything. The person who does something good may not be aware of any immediate personal benefit for his good deed, but it is my belief that it is the cumulative effect of good deeds or virtue that makes things better until things are very good.

Likewise, the person who does something bad may not be aware of any immediate personal detriment, but it is my belief that it is the cumulative effect of bad deeds or 'sin' that screws everything up for everybody. You have a generation of adults eating twinkiess and ho-hos, for instance, and the next generation(s) may experience all kinds of ailments that they might not otherwise have had. A little bit of toxins emitted into the water or soil or air may not be significant, but the cumulative effect of millions doing it is probably why were have certain cancers, breathing disorders, and other ailments.

I don't believe any of us are held accountable when we had nothing to do with the bad deed committed by another. But we might suffer the consequence of the other's sin through no fault of our own.

Like I said, because sin is bad for everybody, God is against it.

Okay that's my take on it for whatever it's worth. Now I'm off to choir practice. Play nice.

Do you really claim to understand what a god would want? Wouldn't the god's being be so immense that we could never comprehend it?

How do you know that you are really doing a god's bidding? Maybe a devil created the Bible and played the ultimate deception. Maybe everything you do to get into heaven is actually getting you closer to hell. How can you possibly know? Maybe a devil took over King James and had him rewrite the Bible so more people would be damned.

You cannot really believe to know what a god would be for, or against, or what they would wish for.

 

[talloulou]

Whats the difference if it is karma passed down by a spiritual lineage or original sin passed down through common linkage to humanity? Its still paying for mistakes made by another in another lifetime.

Indigo Girls!:rofl

 

[AlbqOwl]

Do you really claim to understand what a god would want? Wouldn't the god's being be so immense that we could never comprehend it?

How do you know that you are really doing a god's bidding? Maybe a devil created the Bible and played the ultimate deception. Maybe everything you do to get into heaven is actually getting you closer to hell. How can you possibly know? Maybe a devil took over King James and had him rewrite the Bible so more people would be damned.

You cannot really believe to know what a god would be for, or against, or what they would wish for.

No, I've always said any God that I could comprehend or describe wouldn't be much of a God. So no, I don't have a clue what God wants over all, even for me.

But I am blessed that I have experienced God. And it is through that experience that I believe that if we would just be still and listen, He will tell us what is right and what isn't and how to handle it. Even believers too often just bull ahead and screw things up and then appeal to God to fix it. But sin for me is easy. If it is bad for me or anybody else, it is sin. And God neither punishes nor damns us but we should be aware that in the grand scheme of things there will be consequences for the choices we make just the same.

 

[MrFungus420]

You are still responsible in this life for an action which you did not take in this life. I see no difference.

But, it is still an action that you took. Not an action that anyone else took. That is the difference. With the belief in reincarnation, it is still you that has done it.

First of all, you are taking the most simplistic view of original sin. Original sin is the tendency of man to commit sin because of the original sin of taking of the fruit of the tree which God asked specifically for us not to take. It is more symbolic of our self inflicted loss of innocence as opposed to being representative of a purposeful action.

How am I taking a simplistic view of it? It is the exact explanation of it given by Catholicism.

If anything, it seems that you are trying to define it as something else. You are going from "we are all born in sin because of the original sin of Adam", to "we are all born with the tendency to sin".

Again, what is the difference between sin passed on from a kindred blood line and sin passed on from a kindred spiritual link? I see none. The end result is that in the here and now, if by karma or original sin, you have past other-life transgressions to work through.

It is not something passed on through a kindred spiritual link, as I said, according to the belief in reicarnation, it is something that you, specifically you, did. Not someone related to you, either by blood or spirit, it is you, nobody else.

If my great-grandfather committed murder, then he would be held accountable for that murder. However, his tendency to sin and commit that murder is the bond of original sin which we share through a kindred lineage to Adam.

Not if I were the reincarnation of my great grandfather. It seems to me that karma is a bit more weighted toward burden than original sin is.

If you are the reincarnation of your grandfather, then you are, spiritually, the same person. Reincarnation is the spirit (or soul, if you prefer) being given a new body, the person being given a new shell. The soul is the person, it is eternal. The body is just a temporary, temporal shell. The body is not the person.

 

[Alex]

No, I've always said any God that I could comprehend or describe wouldn't be much of a God. So no, I don't have a clue what God wants over all, even for me.

But I am blessed that I have experienced God. And it is through that experience that I believe that if we would just be still and listen, He will tell us what is right and what isn't and how to handle it. Even believers too often just bull ahead and screw things up and then appeal to God to fix it. But sin for me is easy. If it is bad for me or anybody else, it is sin. And God neither punishes nor damns us but we should be aware that in the grand scheme of things there will be consequences for the choices we make just the same.

How do you know that what you "hear" is really a god?

"Bad" is very subjective. What is bad for you may not necessarily be "bad' for the next person. So how can sin be related to this? How can you say "If it is bad for me or anybody else, it is a sin." I think picking your nose in public is bad, so is it a sin?

Also, if a god tells you how to handle things, doesn't that remove your free will?

 

[jallman]

Indigo Girls!:rofl

I knew there was a reason I liked you...but it was so appropriate wasnt it?

 

[jallman]

But, it is still an action that you took. Not an action that anyone else took. That is the difference. With the belief in reincarnation, it is still you that has done it.

I dont see how you can say that it is the same you. You are talking about a different person in a different time with a different composite make-up, a completely different unique genetic pattern unrelated to the person from the former life. The only link is a continual spiritual bond...and yet the sin (karma) passes on. Its no different.

How am I taking a simplistic view of it? It is the exact explanation of it given by Catholicism.

A definition...a raw definition with none of the philosophical and theological depth intrinsic in the idea of original sin...a definition meant to simply explain to the average person in concise terms. I call that simplistic, sorry.

If anything, it seems that you are trying to define it as something else. You are going from "we are all born in sin because of the original sin of Adam", to "we are all born with the tendency to sin".

Yes, a tendency toward sin because of the sin of Adam in eating from the forbidden tree. I'm not sure exactly what is so complicated about that concept...but I guess if you arent a Christian and you dont subscribe to the belief, it may be a bit foreign.

But from your own simplistic definition:

(2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

That consequence is the loss of innocence that occured and the resultant tendency toward sin. Think beyond the first definition you found and look deeper at the concept and why it would follow man for all time.

It is not something passed on through a kindred spiritual link, as I said, according to the belief in reicarnation, it is something that you, specifically you, did. Not someone related to you, either by blood or spirit, it is you, nobody else.

The only link between two incarnates is a spiritual bond. Man is made of flesh and spirit and mind. The link is spiritual only as there are no memories of the previous life and the body is completely different in another time period...the only thing left is a spiritual lineage. I ask again...what is so much worse about sin that passes through blood lineage than that passed down by spiritual lineage...again, whats so different about it...the same result is that you are paying for mistakes made by another in another lifetime.

If you are the reincarnation of your grandfather, then you are, spiritually, the same person.

But you are not the same body or mind...so two of three components are missing. Not the same person. Just a spiritually linked incarnation of a previous being.

Reincarnation is the spirit (or soul, if you prefer) being given a new body, the person being given a new shell.

And left without any recollection of the previous incarnation...perhaps residual personality traits which were the cause of the transgression to begin with. Hmmm...sounds oddly like a tendency toward sin.

The soul is the person, it is eternal. The body is just a temporary, temporal shell. The body is not the person.

Yes, the body is the temporal house of the spirit. So we can discount the body. The soul is eternal..the vessel through which the karma transports from body to body. But explain the loss of memory...the lack of knowledge of the past self. The blood line of adam is, for all intents and purposes, eternal so long as man walks the earth...it is constant until the end of our time, which is really all that matters in referencing this discussion. Our human quality of being predisposed toward sin because of the eating of the forbidden fruit is the original sin...the one we are all born with because of the forced loss of innocence by one who came before us. I see no fundamental difference between karma and original sin.

 

[Rev.]

How am I taking a simplistic view of it? It is the exact explanation of it given by Catholicism.

If anything, it seems that you are trying to define it as something else. You are going from "we are all born in sin because of the original sin of Adam", to "we are all born with the tendency to sin".

Here's your definition again for reference:

From the Catholic Encyclopeida (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm): "Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam."
This definition says neither "we are all born IN sin" nor "we are responsible for Adam's sin." Adam fell from grace, and as a result, all mankind since is born in a fallen state....a fallen state which is "short of the glory of God" We have, however, retained free choice, so can can choose how we respond to our fallen state. We can let it rule us and be slaves to sin, or we can be saved through faith.

 

[Rev.]

Strip away all the rituals and rules and human notions of right and wrong, and 'sin' can be boiled down to one concept: Sin is that which harms oneself or others. And because God does not wish us to be harmed, that is why He is against sin.

The only point of disagreement I would have with anything you've said so far is your definition of sin because it is so subjective. The word "sin" in the New testament is translated from the Greek hamartano "to miss the mark." If our behavior is like an archery game, our goal is to hit the bull's eye. Anything outside the bull's eye is sin.

The question is, "How to we define the bull's eye?" Some define it as "any imperfect behavior, whether it be willful, accidental, or the result of physical infirmity." Other's define it as "a willful transgression of the known will of God" I prefer the second. It does make it imperitive that we know and understand God's will (which we learn through prayer and Bible Study).

 

[talloulou]

I knew there was a reason I liked you...but it was so appropriate wasnt it?

Yes it was:smile:

 

[AlbqOwl]

:smile:

The only point of disagreement I would have with anything you've said so far is your definition of sin because it is so subjective. The word "sin" in the New testament is translated from the Greek hamartano "to miss the mark." If our behavior is like an archery game, our goal is to hit the bull's eye. Anything outside the bull's eye is sin.

The question is, "How to we define the bull's eye?" Some define it as "any imperfect behavior, whether it be willful, accidental, or the result of physical infirmity." Other's define it as "a willful transgression of the known will of God" I prefer the second. It does make it imperitive that we know and understand God's will (which we learn through prayer and Bible Study).

There is always room for differences of opinion and it is good that we can speak them while loving and/or respecting others who disagree. I personally think none of us is capable of 'knowing' God's will except in a very limited way and frequently on a 'need to know' basis as issues come up. And to me, my definition of sin is nowhere nearly as subjective as that less-than-perfectly-defined bull's eye that some Christians attempt to hit. What is subjective about that which is harmful to oneself and/or others? At the same time, I appreciate your point of view on it and at some time maybe we'll receive our 'grades' together over coffee somewhere in heaven. :smile:

There are many definitions of sin depending on ones objectivity and/or religious ideology or even the source consulted.

From the abbreviated Merriam Webster Dictionary for instance:

Main Entry: 1sin
Function: noun
1 a : an offense against religious or moral law b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c : an often serious shortcoming : FAULT
2 a : transgression of the law of God b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): sinned ; sin·ning
1 : to commit a sin
2 : to commit an offense or fault

I draw my own definition from observation, reflection, revelation (I hope), and really analyzing what such distinguished ancients as the Apostles Peter and Paul had to say about sin. They were both clear that they were sinners no matter how hard they tried not to be. And they were both clear that even if what we do is not harmful to us, if it harms somebody else, it is sin. Jesus Himself is quoted saying in various ways that there is consequence for sin.

My own philosophy is that we are imprudent if we attempt to prove anything by 'proof texting', that is plucking verses from here and there out of context and holding them up as 'evidence' of something.

To me, the divine inspiration of the Bible is reflected in its results. If one reads the whole, through the eyes of those who wrote it, no easy task that, I believe that one does receive glimpses into the mind of God and revelation of what that means for us. To me that is the miracle of the Bible and the greatest blessing received from it.

 

[AlbqOwl]

How do you know that what you "hear" is really a god?

"Bad" is very subjective. What is bad for you may not necessarily be "bad' for the next person. So how can sin be related to this? How can you say "If it is bad for me or anybody else, it is a sin." I think picking your nose in public is bad, so is it a sin?

Also, if a god tells you how to handle things, doesn't that remove your free will?

Bad is not at all subjective. "Bad" is that which harms us or others. "Bad" is sin. That you place other definitions on it does not change the context in which I used it. And I will elect not to allow the context to be changed so far as I am concerned.

How do I know what I 'hear' is God? Christians and Jews have been debating that for many millenia. I pretty much base my accuracy in hearing on the results of my doing.

That God tells me how to handle things in no way removes my or anybody else's free will. We each have the right to refuse or fail to listen, to refuse or fail to obey. And I am reasonably certain that every one of us has, does, and will do that.

 

[Alex]

Bad is not at all subjective. "Bad" is that which harms us or others. "Bad" is sin. That you place other definitions on it does not change the context in which I used it. And I will elect not to allow the context to be changed so far as I am concerned.

How do I know what I 'hear' is God? Christians and Jews have been debating that for many millenia. I pretty much base my accuracy in hearing on the results of my doing.

That God tells me how to handle things in no way removes my or anybody else's free will. We each have the right to refuse or fail to listen, to refuse or fail to obey. And I am reasonably certain that every one of us has, does, and will do that.

Bad is not at all subjective? If I tell a joke to someone and they think it is funny, but I then go to another person and tell it to them, but they get hurt, wasn't that joke subjective to each person? If a doctor helps someone die and that someone consented to it and stated that they do not feel that they are being harmed, but a doctor kills someone without consent, isn't that subjective to the people dying? The one does not consider it harmful and the other would. I do not consider consentable things to be harmful but many people do. That is subjective. So how can you base sin on harm?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Bad is not at all subjective? If I tell a joke to someone and they think it is funny, but I then go to another person and tell it to them, but they get hurt, wasn't that joke subjective to each person? If a doctor helps someone die and that someone consented to it and stated that they do not feel that they are being harmed, but a doctor kills someone without consent, isn't that subjective to the people dying? The one does not consider it harmful and the other would. I do not consider consentable things to be harmful but many people do. That is subjective. So how can you base sin on harm?

The word "bad" is sometimes used for 'unethical' or 'politically incorrect' or 'unpleasant' or "insulting' or 'aesthetically displeasing' or 'in appropriate' or many other terms. In this context it means that which is harmful.

And harm is real despite a person's personal sociopolitical conditioning, ideology, or personal point of view, or what we think or say is harmful or not. You or I may not always know. I'm pretty sure that God does.

 

[alphamale]

First of all, you are taking the most simplistic view of original sin. Original sin is the tendency of man to commit sin because of the original sin of taking of the fruit of the tree which God asked specifically for us not to take. It is more symbolic of our self inflicted loss of innocence as opposed to being representative of a purposeful action.

"Self-inflicted"??? I didn't do it - Adam did!!

 

[jallman]

"Self-inflicted"??? I didn't do it - Adam did!!

I didnt say you specifically...I said "our"...as in our common human bond. The infliction of the loss of innocence was by adam, but now we as his progeny must live with it.

 

[Alex]

The word "bad" is sometimes used for 'unethical' or 'politically incorrect' or 'unpleasant' or "insulting' or 'aesthetically displeasing' or 'in appropriate' or many other terms. In this context it means that which is harmful.

And harm is real despite a person's personal sociopolitical conditioning, ideology, or personal point of view, or what we think or say is harmful or not. You or I may not always know. I'm pretty sure that God does.

How do you know that a god knows this? How do you know that what you think is bad, really isn't good? Could a demon be playing tricks on you?