Women all sinless?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Trilairian, Nov 6, 2005.

  1. Trilairian Registered Senior Member

    The bogus idea of original sin is that all are born fallen from grace having inherited original sin. Somewhere along the line apparently someone asked the question whether Jesus himself would then have been with sin having inherited it the same as anyone else. The standard apology was then that original sin was passed on by the father only and since Jesus was born of a virgin wouldn't have inherited original sin.
    Here's the catch.
    The only thing passed on consistently generation after generation only from the line of your fathers is the Y chromosome. Every other chromosome passed on by a man having arbitrary decent will eventually be passed on by a woman descendent of his. So, if original sin then is inherited only from the male line, given that the only thing that will only be passed on by only men in his descendents is the Y chromosome, the original sin must be inherited by that Y chromosome. Since women do not inherit that chromosome they must not then inherit original sin. Women would therefor be born sinless and in no need of Jesus. Of course the flaw in all this is obvious - original sin and in fact the story of Adam is bogus.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Jesus was man and thus in a sinful body. But the choice is allways up to each one not to sin even though tempted as Jesus was too but choose not to sin...




  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trilairian Registered Senior Member

    so in other words you aren't clear wheter he was born with sin or whether you don't accept the original sin concept.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. c7ityi_ Registered Senior Member

    You just don't understand it.
  8. Trilairian Registered Senior Member

    I understand it better than you do.
  9. c7ityi_ Registered Senior Member

    And you say that without knowing me. If I understood it as you do, I would also call it bogus, but I understand the real meaning.

    btw, i really agree with you when you say that Horus, Quetzacoatl and Christ are all different names for the same thing.
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2005
  10. Trilairian Registered Senior Member

    You don't understand it, and I didn't say that they were all different names for the same thing. I said that the only real relationship Quetzalcoatl has that can be proven to correspond to Jesus before spanish influence was that he was a sun god. I asked if anyone could prove any of the other alleged parallels as having existed prior to thier arrive and no one stepped forward. As for Jesus and Horus, yes Jesus was a latter version of the sun god Horus.
  11. c7ityi_ Registered Senior Member

    Get real, I haven't even said anything about that story. Just because it's allegorical doesn't mean it's not real, a real event. It's a story about humans becoming conscious. Adam and Eve are not actual humans they represent the negative and positive sides of unity or God.
  12. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Since religion, and thus, sin, are bullshit concepts, all things are sinless, as sins do not exist.
  13. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member


    LOL - nice twist.
  14. Paraclete Banned Banned

    Howdy !!!

    The concept of original sin came from the sin Adam and Eve comitted before I threw them out of Paradise - Eve tempted Adam to eat of my best apples , and he did -
    bad,bad girl - bad,bad boy !!!
    When I created Adam I gave him both a X and Y chromosome - and when I created Eve from his rib I took away the Y chromosome and just doubled the existing X from Adam : meaning that both X and Y came from Adam - so if you have XX (female) or
    XY (male) or any other combination of X´s or Y`s, really does not matter -
    you are still original sinners .......... luckily radiation has changed the chromosomes
    a bit so they are not absolutely identical anymore - I never could tell Kain from Abel
    untill Kain got his mark in the forehead ........then again Abel was gone .....

    Jesus was a real big sinner and he knew it :
    when adressed as "good master" in matt 19:17 ,mark 10:18 ,luke 18:19
    he answered : " why callest thou me good ? There is no good but one, that is God. "

    You humans are not black or white , you are only shades of gray ........
  15. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    As I have stated in the past, I don't beleive that the story of the Garden of Eden had anything to do with sin or the "Fall of Man" as many people have mistakenly interpreted.
    But let's assume, for sake of argument, that there IS usch thing as "Original Sin" that was performed by Adam and Eve and is inhereted by all their descendents...

    I'd like to know where you heard this, because I have never heard it, and don't know why you consider it "standard".
    The "standard" apology, as I understand it, is the "Immaculate Conception".
    No, the "Immaculate Conception" does not refer to Jesus' birth, it refers to Mary's birth.
    As the story (Catholic Dogma) goes, God wanted Jesus to have born free of sin. Obviously there is no problem from Dad's perscpective, because he is God. However, since all humans inherit (Original Sin) from their parents, he needed a "Pure Vessel" to incubate his seed. Thus he blessed Mary to be the only human ever born free of sin to give birth to his pure son.

    What makes you think that the "inheritance" would be a physical thing? We are talking about what is supposed to be God's will or mandate. It is like those ridiculous arguments about God's DNA. God doesn't NEED DNA, he is GOD!
    That is one of the most utterly absurd tracts of "reason" I have ever heard.
    But it was pretty funny.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Haps, this is pretty much your standard reply to everyting in the Religion section:
    I don't understand.
    I am not a "believer" either, but I enjoy learning about people's beliefs and customs, so I enjoy talking about religious beliefs. This is why I come here.
    You apparently do not enjoy doing so. Why do you come to this sub-forum?
    If it is to convince others of the folly of their ways and convince them that Religion is silly, do you really think that simply stating such over and over again will do that?
    The only way to do that would be to actually understand what people believe and why they believe it and then have an actual open discussion about it.

    I am not saying you are wrong for doing this, I just don't understand WHY you do it.
    Do you actually enjoy it?
    What pleasure to you derrive from it?
  17. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    I like telling people that they are wrong.
    Now, don't get me wrong, I find the various religions of the world quite an interesting subject, as well. It's just that I don't believe in them.
  18. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Well, if that's the case, why do you not seem to enjoy discussing different theories, point of view and reasonings as hypotheticals?
    For example, when people discuss what this Bible story or that one was supposed to have meant, they are discussing their ideas regarding what they think the original writers may have intended or what manking can glean from such stories.
    Since I find it an ineteresting subject, I like to discuss it.
    I know you are a history buff.
    I look at religion as a history of mankind viewed through the subjective angle of his eyes. If you look at it as a source of anthropological study, it helps you to determine not just what happened to mankind in history, but what mankind thought about it and how he saw the world.
    It is the subjective lens of objective history.
    If you enjoy discussing history so much, what is so off-putting to you about discussing this perspective of history?
  19. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    I like learning about them, and talking about them, but I hate it when someone tries to tell me that thier shit is right, when I don' think it is.
    On Topic:
    Sin doesn't really exist, so it's sort of irrelevant, but to the point, in christian doctrine, all humans are born with original sin, and since women are people too, they would have original sin, and thus any kind of subsequent sin would be applicable.
  20. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    I understand.
  21. Nisus by peace he shall destroy many Registered Senior Member

    Original Sin-- is a false doctrine. Man inherited the disposition to do be tempted to do evil, but not the transgression of Adam. Man also inherited the physical death, but children are born without sin and innocent.

    The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24: 16.)

    The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezek 18:20) (1-20)

    Throughout time, certain conspiring and deceived individuals, have sought to provoke faith and repentance / adherence to certain theologies-- through fear and obligation. Thinking that fear would induce true religious zeal. Also misinterpreting the writings of the prophets..

    in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Pet. 3: 16)
  22. Trilairian Registered Senior Member

    Ok so not all woman are born sinless, only the ones who can track both X chromosomes back to Eve. Lol, both Adam and eve, and the doctrine of Original sin are bogus.
  23. melodicbard Registered Senior Member

    I think original sin is one of the unnecessary doctrines in Christianity.
    I don't know whether it is from Judaism or what. Did Jesus ever mention this concept?

    If the concept is that Jesus is the redeemer of people from sins, you really don't need to assure that everybody is born sinful. It's just one of the tactics in the old days to scare people into submission.
    The story of Jesus asking if anybody dare to stone a sinful woman is good enough. Nobody will claim to be sinless. See, as in Buddhism's karma system, your wrong-doings in your daily life already count.

    People then ask, what happens if an infant (incapable of sin) dies?
    Then comes the purgatory. To patch here and there, more apologetics theories and doctrines came forth ....

Share This Page