This is not correct. It is not what original sin means.

__________________
pro Deus sic diligo orbis terrarum

well when i said it didn't happen i meant the killing of Isaac. The boy didn't die. But i really didn't really want a debate on the meaning of Genesis 22. It's not a problem for me because I'm pretty sure Abraham had faith God would provide a way for his son to live. Abraham knew Isaac was the way God would make his decedents "as numerous as the stars" (Genesis 22:17). God could have demanded Abraham to actually kill his son, but he allowed him to keep him.

And yes i believe there are certain ways God acts and certain ways he doesn't. There is no proof in the entire Bible of God acting directly. Always through people or events.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Alright, I understand the basic concept of original sin in itself, but I am confused when believers explain it and then proceed to say they do not take the creation stories literally. That is great, but how did the concept come around?

First off, certain sectors of Christianity make up the only people in the world who believe in the Trinitarian nonsense. Literally, everyone else in the world can read.

Secondly, you need to learn to count because the Trinitarian doctrine could not have possibly been around for several thousand years. This is the year 2007 AD. Not the year "several thousands" AD.

Third off, you don't go to a church to find a theologist. You go to a University. Most clergy are layman and preachers. Far cries from theologians.

Fourth off, the vast majority of theologians emphatically reject the Trinity. So I don't know why you even tried that. I know you're christian, but please refrain from pulling patently false information out your rear.

Still absolutely nothing necessarily claiming that God and Jesus are the same individual.

Nothing here except more unnecessary and absolutely illogical conclusions.

Here is a hint: You can't possibly be any more clear because the Bible doesn't support the idea that God is actually three seperate individuals. Anyone who knows anything regarding the history of the Trinitarian doctrine knows it is 100% fraudulent.

Are you are saying preachers have no bearing on theology? They people who go to graduate school to become ordained in the church of God? The church has been around for a good 2000 years (and in my opinion two is enough for several but maybe that was bad word choice) and I know from what i have learned about church history that the trinity doctrine has been around almost that long (the Apostles creed can be dated back to the first or second century and that proclaims a trinity belief). I don't know how much clearer the verses have to be. Do you want a verse that says; "they are the same person"? If you do than no there are no verses like that. Considering, though,that The Lutherans, Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, and two widely accepted church creeds all proclaim belief in the trinity i tend to believe them. I went to a Christian college and have yet to find a professor who disagreed with the trinity. Don't tell me Theologians tend to disagree with the trinity since i have been going to church all my life and reading major theological works and have found no pastor the Lutheran church that disagrees with the trinity and only two theologians who disagree with the concept. By your standards of judgment i don't know what church doctrine you would accept.

But this is all useless and this argument is getting illogical. This is a debate on the doctrine of original sin and this is turning into a huge and useless detour.I would say lets agree to disagree. There are churches out there that reject the trinity. Just don't insult my beliefs sir.

Oh and by way there is a verse that says Jesus and God are the same person. Its called John 1:1-15

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Alright back to topic. The concept comes around from Paul's interpretation of the Old testament. But even if you take Adam and the whole story to be a metaphor the doctrine still remains the same. If you boil the story down to it's theological truths:

1. God created humanity (theological and literal truth)
2. God told humanity not to do something (in the story eat from the tree. In reality it could be anything that the Bible says is wrong doesn't really matter just that it was rebellion against God)
3. Humans broke that command (they ate from the tree)
4. as a result sin was let into the world and we all suffer from it (kicked out the garden in the story and later Cain kills Abel metaphors for our suffering)

The theological truth still exists just Genesis 1-3 is a creative way of telling it.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

There are people so simple as to believe in the "literal truth" of the Bible. Some actually hold that it is the word of God; and still others argue over which version of the Scriptures is the true text. It is absurd. For example, William Tyndale translated the Bible into English; but he used the Greek and Hebrew texts rather than the Latin Vulgate prepared by St. Jerome in the 4th Century A.D. Sir Thomas More declared that Tyndale's Bible was heresy, and Tyndale a heretic. (Both More and Tyndale came to bad ends because of their religious beliefs.) The King James Bible was adapted from William Tyndale's translation; which was revised by committees of scholars and edited under the direction of Francis Bacon. So, if we assume that the King James Version of the Bible is the literal word of God, then must God be an Englishman? Perhaps it would be best to have a label on the cover of the Bible warning the unsuspecting public that the true meaning of the word of God may have been lost in translation.

Oh, please.

Now you're name dropping and waving your theological credentials at me? All the while using a blaten mistranslation of John 1:1 in order to support your case?

It's like. Come on, man.

I exepcted this board to offer better overall subject knowledge and argumentation than this.

And this to me is one of the amazing things about Genesis. You can take it figuratively or literally and in the end, the theological message is the same. Amazing!

__________________
pro Deus sic diligo orbis terrarum

Your post says nothing.

Was that directed at me? Is so, what do you mean?

__________________
pro Deus sic diligo orbis terrarum

Once again, the theological message is still the same regardless of the translation.

__________________
pro Deus sic diligo orbis terrarum

Sometimes, I go to this church. YouTube - jesus camp trailer

In fact, I went this morning (I really needed a laugh).

They quite literally believe the O.P.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

Welcome to the board, D.J. I don't want to wave my credentials either, but I too have undergraduate & graduate degrees in comparative religion. And I disagree with Non all the time.

And Non, I attend a Unitarian gathering quite often. The very name "Unitarian" speaks to the fact that not all people who study the Gospels believe in the Trinity.

Really, you should get out more often. . .

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

If the theological message is the same, why are there more than 2500 sects of Christianity in the world today? Why is there sectarian violence? Why are some sects embacing diversity while others are condemning it?

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.