What is your position on original sin: do you believe it exists. Can you give a chapter and verse to support your position either for or against it..
Define "original sin" and I'll tell you if it exists. I'll even give you reasons outside the bible, verifiable facts, to support my position.
... wild ... looking for Biblical and doctrinal answers not debates from the other side ... but feel free to stick around ...
I don't know that the bible ever defines "original sin". Sir Dent made a stab at it, but nowhere in his answer is any scriptural reference to original sin - just Sir Dent's opinion of what HE defines it as. Basically anything the first man did that was wrong. I don't think that's the popular theological definition.
... wild ... thanks for the input ... don't know your background but seems you have a better understanding of the question than several others ... btw, i suspect you are correct in it not being there
*shrug* I don't know about a better understanding, but it was meant as a reasonable request for information. "Original Sin", IMHO, could mean listening to the snake. Or listening to a woman. Or eating an apple. Or disobeying orders of God. Or not covering nakedness. A variety of possibilities, but to answer your question only one fits the bill of "original", and that must be agreed upon before any answer is given.
Rom_5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
... i think we can agree this was the origin of sin and the disobedience is the original sin but what i am asking is where is the scriptural passage that says we are born with "original sin" ... as this would mean that every infant is born with sin already applied ...
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me."
"What is man, that he should be pure, or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?"
... Psalm - david was whining out his lame excuse of why he is what he is ... as we all do ...
... Job - all men are sinners from the moment he makes his first "accountable decision" ...
... still looking for this chapter and verse ...
I'm thinking you will not be satisfied with any verse.
Let's get to your point. You do not believe man was born with original sin?
... had you said "just any verse" you would be correct ... however, i am asking for the verse that uses that term ... straight up ... no, i don't believe in original sin as it is presented by church doctrines ... what i am looking for is the basis for this doctrine and the associated doctrine of child baptism to "wash away that sin" ... what i am wondering is how many folks just accept this doctrine as proper without investigation ... and investigation does not mean sitting in church on Sunday and listening to the sermon and blindly agreeing ...
No, political correctness and it's hyper-sensitivity wouldn't be born for millennia after this writing.
Right, we've come a long way. I'd hate to go back, if you'd like to get a glimpse of what that would look like look at the middle east where in some countries women are not allowed to drive.
Now if anyone thinks all men are sinful because we (at birth) passed through a vagina, please stand up.
... eB ... lets not get distracted here ... those folks on the other side of the cross may listen, and hopefully learn something ... but my question was not a debate on humanism, etc ... just correct, defendable doctrine ...
Oh yes, the "political correctness" that allows me as a female to leave the house, dress as I like, work, live independently and vote. As opposed to that vastly superior Biblical doctrine that says I should cover my head, keep my mouth shut, and take the blame for some mythical sin besetting our entire species.
Seems like you might be leaning a bit more to the "hyper-sensitivity" side I eluded to.
You were kidding with this one as well right?
Absolutely not. Review this line from inception and see if you can tell why not.
She was being hyper sensitive because she feels she should be treated as equal to men? Is that what you would say to the women living in Saudi Arabia who are not allowed to drive a car? Would you really say to them if they were allowed to protest "don't be so sensitive"?
For give me but the two pieces of scripture that were posted seem to at me at least to indicated that all MEN start with sin as we passed through a women vagina at birth. I can produce scripture that supports that interpretation. Seems to me something that was written by men without a healthy respect for women.
Okay Rad, this seems pretty straight forward to me, so perhaps you or Psyche can show me what you think I missed. We begin with Sed-Me providing quotes as requested by the OP:
Considering the common definition of man, and nothing in context to indicate otherwise, there is no reason to assume this refers to other than mankind, (not gender specific).
noun: man; plural noun: men; noun: Man; noun: the Man
an adult human male.
synonyms: male, adult male, gentleman; More
informal guy, fellow, fella, joe, geezer, gent, bloke, chap, dude, hombre;
a human being of either sex; a person.
"God cares for all races and all men"
synonyms: human being, human, person, mortal, individual, personage, soul
"all men are mortal"
Appearing as political correctness reaching for a place to express itself, you said and I replied, as follows:
My response was met with this:
So, from a common use of the word man, meaning mankind, to an allegation of sexism (political correctness), followed by a defensive statement worthy of a counter attack when no attack had transpired, (hyper-sensitivity). Do you two still not see that? If not, please explain.
You've assumed that when "man" and "he" were mentioned that they were referring to mankind. But that in itself is not the problem. Notice both pieces of scripture (as far as I can tell) say that we have sinned because we passed through a vagina. Need I also remind you of the scripture that says a women who has given birth is unclean and must be cleansed by priests and if she has given birth to a girl she is twice as unclean.
But if you think women that don't wish to go back to biblical times are simple hyper sensitive that your prerogative. As a side note, would you say that Africans who don't want to go back to slavery are simply hyper sensitive?
Well Rad, thanks for trying. I made it as clear as I could. I have no idea how you guys got where you went, as to me it seems your train of thought is doing a slalom. All roads for you also seem to lead to slaves, somehow. So anyway...thanks.
Hummmmm, no real reply?
Do you not think we should all be treated as equal? It really just comes down to that, and I'm sure that you will agree we should be. Should psycheskinner be able to drive dressed in shorts and a t-shirt as any guy can?
Before deciding to take the time weighing in on the debate, I am curious of the merit. Is it your contention that you or any other, aside from Christ, are without sin? Unless you feel someone has a clean slate providing they don't hit the gates with a mark already against them, I am not clear on the point.
... i think we are in the same boat ... i believe romans 3:23 and 6:23 ... my search, and that is what it is, is to find why some believe in "original sin" ... my premise in opposition is david's dead child ... we, of course, believe david was a man of faith and thereby inherits a place in Heaven ... therefore the dead child must be in Heaven awaiting him ... if the child had "original sin" then, in keeping with Bible, it may not inherit God, 1 Cor 6:9 one of many ... in order for a doctrine, not a theory, to be proper, it must in all parts agree with the Bible ... every verse of scripture must agree ... therefore, as a sinner i must come to Christ in order to be accepted of God ... this does not fit with the doctrine of "original sin" as proposed by some today ... original sin, by its title condemns the unborn fetus, the newborn and every child prior to their attaining an age of reason, whatever that is ... now, we can take verse after verse and reshape them to fit a doctrine ... but that would be dishonest as well as irreverent ...
Thank you for the clarification. Your reasoning for concern over the validity of original sin is the only one I could imagine, otherwise for everyone else it is moot. Let's set it aside for a minute though, because there may be something you have not considered regarding those commonly considered innocents, including David's baby.
It is common to focus on someone accepting Christ, but for the sake of this discussion it may be more valuable to view it as those who don't reject Christ who receive salvation. Consider that we are told Christ died for the sins of all. How then is it that every man is not saved? We are told each is drawn by the Holy Spirit, and refusing that is the only sin that cannot be forgiven. Unborn and those not yet reaching a level of reason, never refuse the drawing of the Spirit, and are therefore covered by Jesus payment for their sins.
As the parent of a severely disabled child who is much older than the "age of reason" by the standards of normal development, this is an important and I believe scriptural differentiation.
... this issue has been considered ... Romans 10:9-10 seems clear on that point ... i don't believe Christ died for all ... period ... what is missing in that argument (argument being similar to an equation) is the acceptance ... "propitiation" is but the offering which is acceptable to God, but it is also the gift handed toward man yet no gift is a gift unless accepted.... like moses serpent, folks have to look to it in faith believing ... when considering children it would appear they are akin to adam and eve in their innocence ... prior to the falll, they had direct fellowship with God ... the age of innocence ... once expelled from the Garden a new dispensation was begun ... sacrifice was instituted where it was not required previously ... is there any greater innocence than a small child ...
btw ... c-sections are believed to be named after julius caesar ... as i recall he was born in that fashion when his mother died trying to deliver ... he was not the first delivered inthis manner, just the most notable in history ... if its not true about him at least it makes a good story ...
Setting aside your contention Christ didn't pay for the sins of all mankind, and holding back from expressing my own perspective for now, let's explore your premise, taken to it's natural conclusion.
Tell me about this group of millions of people in eternity who, being free from ever having sin, are there on their own merit, not in need of God's forgiveness nor the sacrifice of Christ.
What is their status, role and relationship to God?
To forgiven sinners?
Where can I read of them in scripture?
How should we refer to them?
... not sure who those millions are that you are referring to ... just in case there is a misunderstanding of my position here let me say .... no one, OT or NT has ever been "free from sin" except through faith in the Messiah, Jesus Christ ...
You are correct then, I am misunderstanding your position. I thought you were arguing against original sin, citing David's baby. So would you please apply my last questions to that baby, and explain? It seems to me you are saying he died with no sin, which would mean he was not in need of God's forgiveness or the gift of salvation from Christ that makes it possible. Is he in heaven on his own merit, as a sinless person?
... eB ... i gotta straighten this out as i see we are not in tune with each other ... i think i got zoned reading your debate with someone else about "man" and "mankind" and did not reply with the proper words ... anyway ...
... i do not believe in the doctrine of "original sin" and i did use david's baby as one of the proofs ...
... i did say "no one" in response to salvation in Jesus Christ alone ... i should have said "no man" or words of that nature which you were debating at the time ... my bad
... i do not believe innocents, that being fetuses, babys, youngsters under the age of accountability, persons of limited mental capacity (God be the judge), etc, have the capability to sin ...
... i do not believe in limbo or purgatory ...
... i do not believe in restitutionalism ...
... bottom line is, i confess i am a fundamentalist (no that is not a cuss word to everyone) ... now back to my statement - with correction ...
... no one "who has reached the age of accountability," OT or NT has ever been "free from sin" except through faith in the Messiah, Jesus Christ ...
... Romans 5:13 ... sin is imputed (reckoned attributed) when there is no law. ... spiritually we adults are governed by two economies ... law and grace ... law takes hold when man becomes accountable ... grace frees him from the law and saves him through faith in Jesus Christ ...
... before the law ... that is before the knowledge of right and wrong if you will ... all are innocent, sinless, unable to sin as they have not the directives such as given adam and eve ... babies and those named above are in this category ... Romans 3:20 ... babies and such have no "knowledge" of the law ... now one can put any label on this spiritual state that they chose ... but original sin is not one of them ...
Doc, thank you for the clarification. This does however, put me right back at my previous post:
... i believe all your original questions are answered in my last post ...
Respectfully Doc, you've not answered any of them. Your positions are contradictory. You can't on one hand say there is no original sin, meaning David's baby died sinless, with no need for God's forgiveness or Jesus sacrifice, and on the other hand contend nobody is or was sinless. So which of the two diametrically opposed views are you holding to?
... have to disagree with your reading of my comments ... the elusive "age of accountability" is the key ... once the person is able to discern right and wrong, they will be accountable for each transgression ... and eventually that first sin will take place because we all have a sin nature ... but a sin nature is not sin ... until such time sin is not imputed, does not exist, therefore the person is innocent ... else they could not enter Heaven ... 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Galatians 5:5 a well as other verses make it clear .. now we can debate what unrighteousness or uncleaness but one cannot deny they refer to and are compiled with sins ... so tell me what is original sin, where does it get its footing and is this sin, if it did exist, any different from the others listed in various parts of the Bible ...
Just a question out of curiosity. When did Adam and eve gain the knowledge of right and wrong? I'm pretty sure that the Bible States that they didn't until after eating from the tree of the knowledge of god and evil, which means at the time they disobeyed and ate the fruit, they were not moral agents, had no comprehension of determining right from wrong and could not therefore know that disobedience was wrong.
Good and evil, not right and wrong. A child disobeys their parent knowing full well it is wrong, yet they're not evil.
Yes but a child has more morality that Adam and eve are reported to have had. They had no knowledge whatsoever of good and evil, and there's no reason to just assume (and by that I mean pull it out of your ass) that Good and evil are completely separate from the concepts of right and wrong just to make the story work the way you think it does. There was no one (like parents) to teach them about obedience, or raise them with certain moral expectations. They were simply told not to do something, with no concept of consequences, and were complete innocents when told by a serpent that they could. Sin didn't exist.
If you don't understand or simply refuse to acknowledge the distinction, I can see where that would be confusing and give rise to your question. That remains the answer to it, though.
Children from infants through toddlers and beyond understand the concepts of consequences, even if they are unable at certain ages to understand why. Adam and eve had no such upbringing. What makes them, in your opinion (and it IS only your opinion here) moral agents capable of understanding and thinking through the consequences of their actions. They had no concept of right and wrong OR good and evil. If you told a toddler to not do something, would you punish them and their grandchildren for disobeying you when they do not possess the cognitive ability to understand what you're asking, or the effects of disobedience?
Julie, you often explain how you like to match tone, but I'll refrain from speculating from whence this nonsense was procured. It is hard to imagine how someone purporting any, let alone such advanced knowledge of scripture, would pose something so ridiculous.
Please reread your posts quoted above, and if after doing so you still want to stand by it, I will be happy to show you why it is so hard to take seriously. I don't have time for it if it was just a joke and / or an opportunity to be nasty. If your sincere in holding that view, however, allow me a day or so and I will put together some basic information for you about Adam, I'd have thought you would have known.
Btw, just a friendly warning that you may want to watch your capitalization. I've seen claims of sexism in the forums based on much less merit than your routinely not capitalizing "Eve". Freud would have a field day.
... very good ... now i think we have to move into theory ... how we individually interpret the situation and why ... my response would be they were told to do a lot of things ... including don't eat the fruit ... existence was utopia ... now we see the devil tempting her ... somehow she gets the notion that she can't touch and says so ... no where do we find this "don't touch" in Bible as a directive (similar to original sin doctrine) ... but ... and who knows why ... she touches it and doesn't die ... now the sin nature is manifested in a syllogist decision ... 'i touched and i'm still alive, what happens if i eat it inspite of what God has said ... boom original sin ... then she gives it to the brain trust and he does the same .. she ate and didn't die ... boom original sin ... somewhere in the mix adam did not do his part as eve either was not told or ignored him ... he was standing next to her and did not stop her ... the onus is on him as he was the one entrusted with explaining and exhorting the words of God ... nice story i hope but it is theory as to how it came about ... all we know is she ate first but it was his "original sin" that brought death to mankind ...
Thank you, Julie. It is good to be reminded that sometimes we do agree.
You're still evading my questions. It sounds as though, while reluctant to clearly articulate it as such, you do believe there are sinless individuals in Heaven by their own merit, with no need for God's forgiveness or Christ's sacrifice. Correct?
I don't know. If original sin exists and was passed on, I think it has to be defined as a choice to perceive individually. Nothing done in the story, by the common interpretation, warrants the punishment applied.
I can see where a conscious decision to perceive reality from a different perspective would create a domino effect where that decision is played out, causing each subsequent life to adopt that stance and expand on it. It isn't punishment, but cause and effect.
So, I can see where the writers may have been going with the story, although I can't fathom a time where a human could have been 'spiritually' in tune but not 'physically' in tune. So sin is simply a state of being we each exist in, not something we can ferret out. A choice to perceive in a certain manner, which stunts the ability in future generations to understand the original perception.
I'm going to tilt against windmills here, I know, but having read through the thread I feel compelled to comment.
Why do Christians miss the basic lesson? Why do you repeat the behavior patterns shown in the OT? What's the old saying, if we can't learn from history, we are destined to repeat it?
Arguing in defense of a hoop one must jump through in order to be deemed acceptable to God is no different than the ancient belief that killing an animal on the altar could please a deity. If professing and accepting Jesus as your savior is the hoop that leads to eternal life, it's still a hoop. It's still animal sacrifice. You've substituted one hoop for over six hundred of them, but it is still a hoop.
Were hoops cosmically approved, I doubt one would suffice. I think that is the general consensus, judging by the tenacious tendency of people to cling to religion. I fully understand the belief, and appreciate the humility which drives it, that humans are frail, flawed and unworthy of eternity without the grace of some being powerful enough to ensure it. I get the rationale behind the need to find the hoop.
But. The whole point of the sacrifice was to end sacrifice. Replace a barbaric custom with a reasoned approach; that reasoned approach beginning with the premise that God is love. To deviate from that basic premise is to build religion. To hem in that love. To create yes, but scenarios. To create hoops in order to justify belief that somehow actions within this plane can make some more beloved. To raise oneself above others.
Some people need that, in order to be better people toward others while on this plane. Those who do should cling to it. However, we should (as gently as possible) continually remind them that they have the ability to rise above this selfish and insecure need to think of themselves first. In so doing they will find that the hoops they've allowed religion to create for themselves are simply crutches supporting selfish and insecure needs. They are simply cobbled together beliefs created by ignoring the basic lessons.
... emile ... i think you are missing the point ... jumping through hoops takes effort, work ... faith is not a work but a belief ... there is nothing one "can do" in receive eternal life ... and as many times as we say it, it seems to never get through ... the sacrificial system never gave man eternal life (and the sacrifices have ended btw) ... it has always been faith ... now folks "work" for God and man after being saved but that is the outward exhibition of salvation ... as far as rise above ... i have never met a person of pure virtue ... i include myself ... like the old preacher said "if you knew me like i know me, you probably wouldn't talk to me, but wait, if i knew you like you know you, i wouldn't want you to ... now that is a bit harsh but the premise is true ... so ... i don't need any hoops ... i have all i need for an eternity ... Jesus Christ ...
You missed the point. Obviously, because you just argued in defense of your hoop. As I said. If that hoop is what is needed to strive to be a better person you should cling to it. But, in so doing, I hope that your journey toward being a better person leads to enlightenment. At which point, you'll stop attempting to argue in defense of a hoop for others.
... sounds a bit buddhist to me ... the hoop thing, well it just doesn't do a thing for me and verbage changes nothing ... one must accept Jesus as their savior to attain in place in Heaven ... enlightenment also begins at that time ... so, as to the original question, do you accept the doctrine of original sin ... if you do not understand the concept then you are probably in the wrong forum ...
I answered that question. You labeled it gnostic. My post which precipitated this exchange was in response to points you brought up. Within this forum. If you can't adequately defend your position, it might be well advised to not bring it up in the first place.
... your initial response struck me as gnostic ... then the secondary appeared to be buddhist ... at any rate neither is the subject ... i am looking scriptural, Biblical responses to a Christian doctrine ... in the first case your response was, shall we say, in the ball park ... however the second puts you in the bleachers, as a spectator ... don't feel affronted ... i'm just not interested in the cosmos ... which is why i suggested you may be in the wrong forum ... and my proofs for the subject matter have been presented ... feel free to observe and comment but please use the Bible as your foundation ... all else is, well, not what i am looking at, at the moment ...
To answer the OP it takes more than one verse of scripture.
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Death had not come to man until after Adam ate the forbidden fruit. Man was created in the image and likeness of God and was meant to live for eternity. When the fruit was eaten, man sinned for the first time. This first sin brought death to all who were born after.
Rom_6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Death comes to all flesh not just a few. Babies die, children die, young men and women died, old men and women die. No one is exempt from death. This is not saying that babies are sinners, it merely mean they are born in the flesh as we all are.
The flesh is enmity (according to Strong's concordance; G2189
Feminine of G2190; hostility; by implication a reason for opposition: - enmity, hatred.
) against God and does not want God but hates God. This is why we must put our flesh under subjection to the spirit.
... thank you sirdent ... we agree across the board regarding death ... but still looking for any verse that contains the words "original sin" ... it is tiresome to see folks led down the path with doctrines that are man made ... which lead to other man made doctrines ... if its a proper doctrine, there will be a verse (probably many) from the Bible that says exactly and agrees exactly with the words of the doctrine ... in this case we have one issue that has brought about a second issue, neither of which is supported by the Bible ... the second being child baptist ... what's it for, what's its value ... is it to wash away original sin, an item that does not exist ... still looking ...
There is a contradiction in the bible ignored by by Christianity. David clearly stated in Psalm 139 that God made him in his mother's womb. Thus if man has a sinful nature then it was god who put it there during the womb manufacturing process. If the sin is inherited in the sense we inherit genes from our parents then whilst God is actually manufacturing us why does he not remove this sin component as a scrap item?
It's quite simple really. Christians say we are born defective by being born with a sinful nature thus they believe god makes defective goods. However if everything god makes its good then we are born sinless.
I've never once had a Christian provide any useful answer to this contradiction.
... and you probably never will get a satisfactory answer ... its one of those things (there are several for me) that is a mystery, that being why God gave us the ability to chose right and wrong ... he did the same with angels ... there have been a lot books written on the subject, page upon page ... and these authors all say the same thing ... "i guess, i theorize but i really don't know" ... and made a lot of money saying it ... but a contradiction? ... no ... a conflict of the mind, maybe ... but faith properly placed does not demand that we understand everything, then it wouldn't be faith, but knowledge ... and only God possess 100% knowledge ... so i'll let what i know to be true take care of those things which are unexplainable to the finite mind ... and one day in Heaven, i'll ask Him about that ...
You've still, after many attempts to have you do so, not clarified which side of the contradictory replies you are actually supporting. I am going to slow it down a bit, so I can be clear what your position is. You said:
So please direct your answer specifically to this very direct question:
Do you believe there are sinless people, and if so, are they then in heaven on their own merit?
... in "slowing it down" i sense a little play on words trap here ... i think my previous answers are quite clear ... i have given definitive answers and verses ... possibly you could explain what you mean by "sinless person" ... this phrase/term, along with "original sin" are not found in that form in the Bible ... and, if you will, include the verse(s) you base your premise of "original sin" ... and verses that all are born with sin, including the baby of david ... and please do not use Psalm 51, it does not apply ...
Yes, there was Original Sin. It happened in the Garden. God said that Adam would die on the day he ate of the forbidden fruit. Though he did not physically die on that day, he died spiritually. When Christ told Nicodemus that we need to be born again, he was speaking of this spiritual death and the need to be reborn of the spirit -- to awaken to the spiritual self instead of the self of the forbidden fruit -- ego.
Christ talked of this ego self when he said, "He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life."
He also talked of this ego self when he said that those who are First (egoist) shall be last and that those who are Last (humble) shall be first.
The idea that "innocent" children are born into sin has long been a confusing idea, but when you read Ezekiel 18:18–20, it starts to become clear. Only the guilty pay for their crimes. Numbers 14:18 reinforces this idea, as does the statement of Jesus that those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. Yet, we see so many criminals die of old age in the comfort of the villas built on the blood of others.
As Numbers 14:18 explains, God is slow to "anger." The punishment of the guilty does not come right away. In fact, it does not necessarily come in the same lifetime. The 3-4 generations mentioned in Numbers gives the perpetrator long enough to live out their corrupt life, be born again of the flesh and to grow to an age where they will appreciate the boomerang they threw in the previous life.
When the perpetrator is hit by his own boomerang, consciously he is confused. "Why, God? Why is this happening to me." But then his true self (the Holy Ghost within) knows what is going on. When he is ready, the boomerang of suffering (dying by the sword by which he had lived) will awaken a point in the heart that softens the heart toward humility.
The original sin was the blindfold of ego pulled over our spiritual eyes. We were the ones in the Garden.
In every lesson Christ gives about the wicked, you see ego lurking in the shadows. The rich church goer who donates openly is increasing his ego and moving further from God. The old woman who can barely afford her own food, yet she donates in private, is dissolving ego toward the Love of God.
When we take responsibility for all the evil done against us, then being a victim becomes impossible. Also, turning the other cheek becomes effortless.
When we love our fellows (even our enemies) as ourselves, then we give to them what we ourselves would want and thus we become more like God -- without self-concern -- only love for others. This is the end of sin. This is what it means to follow Christ.
If you want wisdom, you will know that the Bible (Pentateuch) was written in code by Kabbalists. That code is now available for all -- the language of branches.
... had me going with you for a while there ... then ... boom ... gnosticism and mysticism rear their medusan head ... so the question is forced, "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as the savior, your personal savior, as the son of God, as God Himself personified? ...
by paarsurrey6 years ago
Is it not a Christian doctrine that every human beings is sinful except Jesus?
by lucieanne6 years ago
I have recently posted a comment on someone's hub where I said that I didn't agree with their ideas, giving my own reasons for my own beliefs. I was polite and courteous, I didn't use any bad language and I thought I...
by Vernon Bradley6 years ago
I sometimes think that the "real" sin in "original" sin, was not the disobedience, but the running away and hiding and being fearful of remaining naked, vulnerable and humble. Come on, give it...
by Ahmad Usman6 years ago
Every Christian believes that their sins are forgiven by the blessed name and blood of Jesus on the Cross. The concept that Jesus (PBUH) died for the SINS of Mankind (Original Sin/Blood Atonement) runs contrary to not...
by Cagsil7 years ago
The 'Gods' were aliens. Just look at cave paintings. Jesus didn't perform miracles, he was an alien using his technology to create the illusion of miracles.Any sufficiently advanced technology is...
by LewSethics5 years ago
Only they would exist, cruising Eden, all innocent. Naming things, etc.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.