Sentences with phrase «original sin does»

Niebuhr's statement of the Fall and of original sin does not stand without opposition.

However, the concept of «original» in original sin does not require a history that includes a past Garden of Eden with a now lost perfection; nor does it require blaming Adam and Eve for our own moral condition.

These essays make clear that the belief in original sin does not necessarily lead to an endorsement of physical punishment.

It was certainly meant to be taken literally because if it is not the sacrifice of Jesus to forgive original sin doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

If I am being honest, I will start by saying that Divinity: Original Sin didn't grab me in quite the same way it so obviously did many others.

Not exact matches

If you agree with what God calls sin, then you need only look at your own thoughts and conduct to know that you don't measure up to his standard, whether you were born with original sin or not.

except, due to our understanding of evolution, we don't need saving because there was no original sin by a supposed «adam and eve.»

If, as our current philosopher - pope reminds us, sin flows from a failure to gratefully acknowledge and do the duties that flow from our deeply relational being, then Mattie was, in a way, sort of a sinner by nature (as are we all, due to original sin), who added to her natural brokenness through her proud willfulness.

Given that I accept the evolutionary nature of the creation of life, I don't believe literally in the Adam and Eve story, in the «Tree of Knowledge» or in the concept of original sin.

What, that god sent himself in human form to earth to live and die, so that he could live again and then rejoin himself in heaven, so that the creations, who apparently have original sin because a talking snake convinced a rib lady to eat an apple thousands of years ago, could choose to believe in Zombie Jesus and if they did they would go to heaven but if they didn't believe in Zombie Jesus they would fry in Hell forever, regardless of how good a life they lived on Earth?

So then no Adam and Eve = no original sin = Jesus didn't need to be sent to die for my sins by a God who concluded «He» couldn't forgive us without one more blood sacrifice.

Then tell them it's ok to break them as long as you do everything I say, and believe everything I tell you, because we are all rule breakers (original sin).

Did you know that if you die before getting baptized (no matter what transgressions you make), then you get to go to the celestial kingdom (because we believe that men must be punished for their own sins and not for Adams trangression i.e. no original sin).

Put too briefly, total depravity means that, as a consequence of original sin, there is absolutely nothing we are capable of doing in order to be saved.

Since it was Adam and Eve's sin that god allegedly sent his son to save us from, but we are not all descendants of Adam and Eve, then god would not have sent his son to save us from a sin all men have, since all men are not descendants of that one genetic set, we do not all have that original sin.

For one thing, I don't believe in original sin.

The idiotic theory of original sin as in «I was born a sinner, ha, ha, ha, and I can't do no better so I'll just wallow in it like a moron» is the beginning of Calvinism.

But does it close the door to any further insight, if that could be shown to compatible with what has already been defined - viz. the teaching on Original Sin?

For the faithful in Christ can not accept this view, which holds either that after Adam there existed men on this earth who did not receive their origin by natural generation from him, the first parent of all, or that Adam signifies some kind of multiple first parents; for it is by no means apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with what the sources of revealed truth and the acts of the magisterium of the Church teach about original sin, which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam, and which is transmitted to all by generation, and exists in each one as his own» -LCB- Humani Generis 37).

Mary's protection from inheriting the wound of Original Sin, her Immaculate Conception, does not take away her free will.

Did all the plants inherit original sin as well?

If Adam & Eve didn't exit, there's not original sin.

What we need to do is to relate the truth about marriage and the family to the heart of its gospel; that is, to the Father's plan expressed already in the original unity between Adam and Eve, prior to the fall and original sin, and to the joy that belongs to the ethos of redemption and the New Law.

I have often thought, particularly when working in the diocesan marriage tribunal, that our acknowledgement of the fact of Original Sin gives us such a head start when it comes to understanding human nature, and why people act the way they do.

Theologians tend to state that the instrumental cause of Original Sin is the act of generation, but that does not help to explain the exact mechanism.

If Adam and Eve did not exist, then there was no original sin.

The notion that the personal deed of «Adam» or the first group of people is imputed to us in such a way that it has been transmitted to us biologically, as it were, has absolutely nothing to do with the Christian dogma of original sin.»

We also believe that each person is responsible for his / her own actions and as such we don't believe that Jesus had to die on the cross because of the original sin.

It doesn't matter to me if the Western Church has «inherited» the idea of original sin and refers to it in its councils; I was talking about your everyday Christian now, what they really believe in an active day to day sense.

I don't really know much about Niebuhr but was a bit puzzled about his quote about the empirically verifiable doctrine of original sin.

Personally, I do believe in original sin.

Which do you believe: 1) original sin or 2) original blessing?

Did this so - called original sin have noetic consequences?

Jeremy Myers does a great job here in exploring this «original sin.»

According to the myth god knocked up a virgin woman to produce jesus, so why does jesus not have original sin like all the rest of those in the story?

Which means we don't live in a fallen world, and there is no original sin.

The doctrine of original sin is not the teaching that human beings have problems (though all human beings do).

I know there are going to be a bunch of people out there that scream that God can do anything and could create a sinless Child, but you can not ignore the HUMAN nature of Jesus, so unless God created something other than human, and then placed it in Mary's womb, he inherited his human nature from his mother and thus inherited the Original Sin.

but on the third day using his Power of Resurrection rose from the dead to claim his seat next to God in heaven, I mean next to himself since he was also God and then told the masses that he died for their sins, though oddly enough being God he could have simply absolved them of their sins and he really didn't die because he lives and is coming back to judge man based upon the original sins... but not sure if that would work since man can clearly kill a God with wood and nails... I know, I know confusing and likely to be labeled heresy... but debates about nomenclature and religion... i mean story telling... just don't mix.

This volume does not ignore the communities in which the concept of original sin «plays a role in supporting the harsh and even brutal treatment of children.»

But it would be a mistake to suppose that an Augustinian emphasis on original sin or predestination (which, oddly, Pagels does not discuss) leads inevitably to a denial of the right of civil protest or to passive submission to authority.

This points back to original sin like nothing else does.

The guilt I'm referring to has more to do with original sin than other commandments that you speak of, but with your example, of course these things were carried out in the past, quite a lot actually.

And He blots out the original sin for His own sake and will never think of it again (Isaiah 43:25), so the only thing on the record is everything good God did.

«Original sin» means that anything we enjoy doing is wrong.

Ephrem does not accept original sin.

But this does not mean that an inherited «original sin» is able to remove immediacy between God and man.

At the end of this offspring's life it shows up, attracts unwanted attention and commits suicide by cop in order to atone for the «original» sin that its own creation committed (why this omniscient god didn't see that coming is...... anybody's guess).

Just as in the case of Ephrem, Aphrahat also does not accept original sin.

Do animals of all types have original sin because the talking snake fvcked everything up for all the rest?