Original Sin?

I'm reading a book on Paul right now, "Paul: In Fresh Perspective" by N.T. Wright In fact you should read just about any book by N.T. Wright it would be very helpful for you. Also you should also read the Bible. A real eye opener.

I've read the NT many times. They definitely
thought Jesus was coming back in their
time. Somebody slipped in a passage much
later about how time is different to god than
to us, a year to god could be a thousand to
us or some such baloney. An escape clause,
the rank and file was getting restless.

I love how any verse that doesn't support your argument is "slipped in later" or "baloney". You are correct however that the early Christian community did indeed think the Lord was coming back in their time. The first letters of the NT to the Thessalonians, written less than 20 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus begin to address this concern. Again you should maybe read it again.

Let's try to change course.

What would the "proper," moral position for a Christian be when confronted with a person who "sins"? Would it be more important that this person 1) stops, 2) provides some form of restitution or atonement to people he hurt, 3) receive forgiveness from God (if that's how it works)? or something else entirely?

Corollary: if this "sin" doesn't hurt anyone, even the "sinner," then would it be proper to just ignore it?

Thank you very much Nareed.

Of the three options you gave I would take number 3 - that the person receive forgiveness from God and therefore be able to forgive himself. This is not to the exclusion of the other two necessary aspects of true conversion. However, if someone doesn't feel that they are forgiven and loved and a good person they simply will be unable to stop the sin and any atonement will be an empty action. Normally, I imagine people would think option 1 would be the most important - just stop sinning. However, that fails to address the reason they are sinning and is usually not possible. We all like to think that all sin is a moral weakness that it means you've chosen to do something bad and you should just stop it. It is far from that simple.

Unfortunately even very menial sins that don't seem to hurt anyone or the sinner themselves actually do hurt them, especially if they are allowed to build up and form habits. It is best not to ever ignore sin, but also we shouldn't make a huge deal over these small sins.

Quote: FrGamble

I love how any verse that doesn't support your argument is "slipped in later" or "baloney"..

Actually, it wasn't me, it was a Bible scholar
who said it. He didn't use the term baloney.

Oh a Bible scholar, why didn't you say so...I renew my objection.

Quote: FrGamble

Oh a Bible scholar, why didn't you say so...I renew my objection.

I'm not patient enough to read the OT
and how wonder somebody got a religion
out of it. The incest alone is enough
to make anybody turn away is disgust.


In Genesis 9:20-27, Ham saw his father Noah's nakedness. The Talmud suggests that Ham may have sodomized Noah (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 70a). In more recent times, some scholars have suggested that Ham may have had intercourse with his father's wife.

Abraham's brother Nahor married his niece Milcah, the daughter of his other brother Haran.

In Genesis 19:30-38, living in an isolated area after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot's two daughters conspired to inebriate and seduce their father due to the lack of available partners. Because of intoxication, Lot "perceived not" when his firstborn, and the following night his younger daughter, lay with him. (Genesis 19:32-35) The two children born were directly Lot's sons and indirectly his grandsons, being his daughters' sons. Likewise, their sons were also their half-brothers, having the same father.

In one of the tales of a wife confused for a sister, Abraham admitted that his wife Sarah is also his half-sister, on his father's side.[2] However, in the rabbinic literature, Sarah is considered Abraham's niece (the daughter of his brother, Haran).[citation needed]

Abraham's son Isaac married Rebekah, his first cousin once removed, the granddaughter of his father's brother Nahor and niece Milcah.[25] Isaac and Rebekah's firstborn son Esau married his cousin Mahalah, daughter of his father's brother Ishmael,[26] while their second son Jacob married his cousins Leah and Rachel, daughters of his mother's brother Laban.[27] Marriage of cousins was not forbidden in biblical law.

In Genesis 35:22, Jacob's firstborn son Reuben committed incest by sleeping with his father's concubine Bilhah.

In Genesis 38, Judah, the fourth son of Jacob, mistook his daughter-in-law Tamar for a prostitute while she was veiled, and had sex with her.[28]

The biblical character Amram married his paternal aunt, Jochebed, the mother of Miriam, Aaron and Moses.[29]

In the book of 2nd Samuel, Amnon, King David's eldest son and heir to the throne, raped his half-sister Tamar; Tamar's brother, Absalom, learned of the incident and, two years later, ordered his servants to have Amnon killed.[30] It is noteworthy that when pleading in vain with Amnon, Tamar said, "Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee".[31] This would imply that - in spite of the prohibition set out elsewhere in the Bible - the marriage of siblings (at least those of different mothers, as Amnon and Tamar were) could be acceptable in the society in which the story was written.[citation needed]

I wonder sometimes how God was so patient with us, the incest is enough to make anybody turn away in disgust. Yet God continues to love us, show us our folly, forgive us, reestablish the covenant and try again. Talk about the patience of Job.

Quote: FrGamble

Yet God continues to love us, show us our folly, forgive us, reestablish the covenant and try again. .

You mean people continue to reinvent god
as we go along. For the Church to remain
relevant the image god has to continually
change to keep up with the times. God is
always need of a Madison Ave facelift.

Phooey on that.