PDA

View Full Version : Original Sin



Christian Holzman
Apr 23rd 2007, 11:01 PM
I read today where the pope has buried the concept of limbo ( the place where children who were not baptized into the church before their death are to go, a place of innocence forever...If I understand it correctly)

Now limbo is a place I have never believed to exist my question is how do you think the catholic church now address original sin? I dont consider myself catholic and most who are not raised catholic dont have a good grasp exactly what this topic is covering. But for those who have studied this topic or were raised catholic, I would like to get your point of view.

punk
Apr 24th 2007, 12:26 AM
I read today where the pope has buried the concept of limbo ( the place where children who were not baptized into the church before their death are to go, a place of innocence forever...If I understand it correctly)

Now limbo is a place I have never believed to exist my question is how do you think the catholic church now address original sin? I dont consider myself catholic and most who are not raised catholic dont have a good grasp exactly what this topic is covering. But for those who have studied this topic or were raised catholic, I would like to get your point of view.

Well, logically they'd have to place them in Hell. They are born in original sin and thus damned, and have had no recourse to the saving sacraments of the Church.

Any other answer and they'll run into problems opposing abortion. If an aborted baby goes to Heaven or Purgatory automatically, then abortion doesn't look so bad a thing, whereas if an aborted baby is damned to Hell, then abortion is truly an evil thing.

However sending dead babies to Hell in your theology doesn't sit well politically these days, so they'll probably try to skirt the issue.

Owen
Apr 24th 2007, 07:51 AM
Well, logically they'd have to place them in Hell. They are born in original sin and thus damned, and have had no recourse to the saving sacraments of the Church.

Any other answer and they'll run into problems opposing abortion. If an aborted baby goes to Heaven or Purgatory automatically, then abortion doesn't look so bad a thing, whereas if an aborted baby is damned to Hell, then abortion is truly an evil thing.

However sending dead babies to Hell in your theology doesn't sit well politically these days, so they'll probably try to skirt the issue.

So is killing a Christian a good thing because it will send them to heaven?

Walstib
Apr 24th 2007, 04:44 PM
I would say that in a way that is true and a way it is not. For the person going to heaven it is good, for the person killing.....

For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight, We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. (2Co 5:2-8)

Peace,

Joe

punk
Apr 24th 2007, 04:49 PM
So is killing a Christian a good thing because it will send them to heaven?

It might be if you are NOSAS.

Steve M
Apr 24th 2007, 04:54 PM
It might be if you are NOSAS.
But if you were NOSAS you'd have to be sure they were saved at the moment you killed them. Otherwise, oops.

punk
Apr 24th 2007, 05:10 PM
But if you were NOSAS you'd have to be sure they were saved at the moment you killed them. Otherwise, oops.

Ah the bane of limited and imperfect knowledge.

Teke
Apr 24th 2007, 08:08 PM
.......... my question is how do you think the catholic church now address original sin?

Same as always. :D In the west (RC) it's more of a moral legal issue, and in the east (EO) it's not. Two different views of God from the garden incident and "original sin".
Guess one has to decide for themselves.

Owen
Apr 24th 2007, 08:35 PM
It might be if you are NOSAS.

So, is good determined by the result that comes about or the act itself?

Ruzz
Apr 24th 2007, 08:56 PM
Just what IS "original sin" exactly?

Now I believe we all are born with a sinful nature, but not actual sin.

For example, I may inherit my father's athletic ability, but before I can be an athlete, I must act on it.

Infants have done no sin that I can see.

punk
Apr 24th 2007, 09:09 PM
So, is good determined by the result that comes about or the act itself?

Ah, the ages old question of whether the ends justify the means.

punk
Apr 24th 2007, 09:10 PM
Just what IS "original sin" exactly?

Now I believe we all are born with a sinful nature, but not actual sin.

For example, I may inherit my father's athletic ability, but before I can be an athlete, I must act on it.

Infants have done no sin that I can see.

Original sin means we are actually born with sin.

Sin isn't a checklist of offenses commited, it is the state of your very soul. So, in the view of original sin, you can never have committed a specific act of sin but still be in a state of sin.

Sin is separation from God, and, in the view of original sin, all are born in a state of separation from God and in need of Christ's atonement to end that separation.

Ruzz
Apr 24th 2007, 09:13 PM
Original sin means we are actually born with sin.

Well, I've heard several definitions of "original sin"

Some say we don't have actual sin but Adam's sinful nature. Other say we inherited Adam's actual sin.

It gets muddy when you add infant baptism into the picture, because you really need to have a clear definition of what it is you are trying to remove.

Owen
Apr 24th 2007, 09:19 PM
Ah, the ages old question of whether the ends justify the means.

What does the Bible teach?

punk
Apr 24th 2007, 09:21 PM
What does the Bible teach?

I imagine since it advocates genocide against undesirable peoples that a little murder to send a good soul to heaven is a-okay. ;)

Owen
Apr 24th 2007, 09:23 PM
I imagine since it advocates genocide against undesirable peoples that a little murder to send a good soul to heaven is a-okay. ;)

How does the eradication of certain peoples (who the Bible generally claims to be a sinful) determine whether the ends justify the means?

punk
Apr 24th 2007, 10:20 PM
How does the eradication of certain peoples (who the Bible generally claims to be a sinful) determine whether the ends justify the means?

Because, arguably, the end (eradicating a sinful people) justified the means (mass murder) in that particular case.

That is unless of course you think mass murder is generally justifiable.

Christian Holzman
Apr 24th 2007, 10:38 PM
Well, I've heard several definitions of "original sin"

Some say we don't have actual sin but Adam's sinful nature. Other say we inherited Adam's actual sin.

It gets muddy when you add infant baptism into the picture, because you really need to have a clear definition of what it is you are trying to remove.

well since we are discussing the catholic teachings in this topic on "original sin", which is being born into sin. I dont see what needs to be cleared up.

Owen
Apr 24th 2007, 10:43 PM
Because, arguably, the end (eradicating a sinful people) justified the means (mass murder) in that particular case.

That is unless of course you think mass murder is generally justifiable.

The ends and means as you put it there are the same thing (erradication/murder).

Where is there a single case where the means and ends are truly different and the ends justified the means?

punk
Apr 24th 2007, 10:46 PM
The ends and means as you put it there are the same thing (erradication/murder).

Where is there a single case where the means and ends are truly different and the ends justified the means?

On the contrary, forced sterilization would have been a means of eradicating them as well. It just would have taken longer.

Owen
Apr 24th 2007, 10:52 PM
On the contrary, forced sterilization would have been a means of eradicating them as well. It just would have taken longer.

Ok. Let me try to make the point in another way.

God said to kill them according to the Bible. Thus, it is justified. God decides whats right and whats not. It is justified because of that. Just life God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (only to come later and tell Abraham to spare him). It is justified on that principle alone.

God nowhere says to murder babies or Christians.

What God says to do is what justifies things. He doesn't say to murder to get someone to heaven. He said to kill a people to erradicate them. The first is unjustified because God does not command that and all other commands are against that. The second is justified because God called for it.

Neither the ends or means truly justify the action, but only the will of God justifies something.

punk
Apr 24th 2007, 10:53 PM
Ok. Let me try to make the point in another way.

God said to kill them according to the Bible. Thus, it is justified. God decides whats right and whats not. It is justified because of that.

God nowhere says to murder babies or Christians.

So you are saying the Bible cannot be used to extract general principles?

Owen
Apr 24th 2007, 10:56 PM
So you are saying the Bible cannot be used to extract general principles?

Nope. I am saying nothing to that effect.

Christian Holzman
Apr 24th 2007, 11:00 PM
this thread is not about murdering babies or christians, please stick to the topic.

Owen
Apr 24th 2007, 11:05 PM
this thread is not about murdering babies or christians, please stick to the topic.

On the contrary though, it really does though it is a bit diverging.

At the crux of the matter is the question of guilt of infants. Punk is essentially arguing that if infants go to heaven, then murdering them is good, but since murdering them isn't good (implied) therefore infants don't go to heaven. Or at least that is the argumentation that I perceive him to be going with. Either that or it is a justification for abortion/infanticide.

This is just simply following the point. While it is a bit divergent, it has the nature of infants and whether they are guilty at its center.

Teke
Apr 24th 2007, 11:26 PM
Interesting.....

Original sin means we are actually born with sin.

Sin isn't a checklist of offenses commited,

I agree. :)


it is the state of your very soul.

Not sure what you mean.:hmm:


So, in the view of original sin, you can never have committed a specific act of sin but still be in a state of sin.

One could say it in English that way. :P


Sin is separation from God, and, in the view of original sin, all are born in a state of separation from God and in need of Christ's atonement to end that separation.

Scripture would seem to prove that man has never been separate from God. Or perhaps I should say, God has never been separated from us.

Christian Holzman
Apr 25th 2007, 06:43 AM
On the contrary though, it really does though it is a bit diverging.

At the crux of the matter is the question of guilt of infants. Punk is essentially arguing that if infants go to heaven, then murdering them is good, but since murdering them isn't good (implied) therefore infants don't go to heaven. Or at least that is the argumentation that I perceive him to be going with. Either that or it is a justification for abortion/infanticide.

This is just simply following the point. While it is a bit divergent, it has the nature of infants and whether they are guilty at its center.

I have followed yalls discussion and I see what your point is as well as his, but I personally dont think this is about if its ok to murder an infant. I believe his point is for the infant that has been killed it is good for that infant because the infant is now with God. I dont see him saying that the it is ok for the one that is doing the killing, just like if you have 2 people on the street, one is someone who follows and believes in christ while the other is just some stranger who winds up killing the follower of christ. Now it is good for the one who has a relationship with God, but at the same time it doesnt make it right that it happened. I think this is the point that he is making, that although these infants may lose their life it is good for them, but at the same time that doesnt make it ok. I think we shpuld try to get back on topic or more close to what the topic is, at the same time I realize that with this topic it will drift and bring up many other discussions as well. Which is ok, just as long as we try to stay close to the original topic.