Original Sin:
Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin" (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to the sin of Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis.

Also: Used with the definite article ("the original sin"), it refers to the first sin, committed when Adam and Eve succumbed to Satan's temptation.

/shrug, does it really matter? doesn't to me. that is just my view of the trinity. the trinity isn't that important to me seeing as how all three are really one anyway and i'm not christian.

@morethanpretty: I'm just exploring the idea here, if one has the Trinity concept in one hand, and Intelligent Design in the other, and they don't fit together well, then that indicates a problem with one or both. Standard rebuttal: "logic doesn't apply to some things" . . .

Right. Logic doesn't apply to things that are rubbish.

marichiko, being baptized has nothing to do with being saved. It's a public ritual that shows others that you have accepted Christ. Original sin is the natural state of humanity, and has nothing to do with the fact that you were conceived via sex. :lol: Only a handful of sects believe that all the members of the others are going to hell. If you believe Jesus is the son of God and that his death pays for your sin, you're a Christian.

When you start getting humans monkeying around with the original message, that's where trouble starts. Catholics say you have to go through a priest to talk to God. Mormons say that God is just a man who's reached a higher plane of existence. Lutherans sprinkle, Baptists dunk, Assembly of God gets hung up on prophecy, faith healing, and speaking in tongues. Some of that stuff is not critical to what they believe re: Christ and salvation. Some of it is. But belonging to one denomination or the other isn't what defines your relationship with God. Being "a good Catholic" is not the same thing as following Christ, although millions use it as a substitute. One branch of the Church of Christ doesn't allow musical instruments in church, and doesn't allow women to wear pants. That has nothing to do with the message of Christ.

There are a lot of people who were raised in religion, but never got around to the actual point of Christ. Religion is a minefield of bad doctrine, legalistic but empty regulations, and self-proclaimed experts. That's what happens whenever you get a bunch of people together -- they want to organize things and micromanage each other.

It's not about religion though. It's about the message of Christ. People should examine what Christ said and did, and decide his validity based on that alone, not on the actions of a bunch of flawed men and women. Christianity is a personal experience. Fellowship and friendship with other Christians is how we strengthen our own faith, hold each other accountable, and help each other through tough times. Unfortunately, "religion" often results.


Flint -- I don't think that the concept of the trinity and the concept of ID have much of anything to do with one another. I'm not much of a biblical scholar, but I think the whole trinity thing is from Catholicism. I'm not convinced that it's anywhere in scripture. I realize you're not really asking, just taking shots, but you should know that it's possible that if there is a God, he might be smarter than you. He might even be capable of doing things that you can't explain. Just saying.

:lol:
You'd think, wouldn't you?

Go in peace to love and serve the lord...

No, I really am asking, not taking shots. If a theoretical person (whoever this may be) believes in the Trinity and they also believe in ID, how would that work? I ask because the way I manage my belief system is by hashing things against one another to find discrepancies, which in turn indicate a resolution is required in order to avoid cognitive dissonance.

I guarantee there are forces at work that it is literally impossible for me to ever understand, but, as far as my personal understanding goes, I want to make sure I at least agree with myself.

M. Noodle...the Trinity originated in Catholism when Constantine was the Roman Emperor. He legalize Christianity and held two councils to determine what the basic beliefs of Christanity were. It was decided that Jesus resurected from the dead, Mary was a virgin, and the Trinity was established. The first two are in the Bible but I have never found direct evidence of the Trinity in the Bible, I think perhaps they were tryin to explain how you could have God and the Son of God and they both be God. BTW awesome explanation, reminds me why I love Jesus but hate modern 'christians'.
Flint...Its not a puzzle, there are no "pieces" or comprehesible picture in the end. You don't have to accept the Trinity, and I don't think that it is meant to describe the entire being of God. You have to remember that God is omnisecent, so He doesn't fit within the boundaries we humans place Him in. We place those boundaries so that we are better able to comprehend Him.

I don't see why they are mutually exclusive. If God is all powerful, all things become possible. Trying to figure out "which member of the trinity did the creating" is based on a human construct of the trinity. We think in terms of easily separated, individual parts, or three ingredients of a whole. God's paradigm is likely to be infinitely more complex and/or more simple than our crude attempts at categorizing.

the thing that you have to account for is that human understanding cannot grasp -- or possibly even envision -- the magnitude of God. Even to say that God is in "everything" limits him to the "everything" that we can imagine.

So the issue isn't really the trinity vs. ID. It's whether or not God is God.

edit: morethanpretty beat me, and said it more concisely

I believe that our philosophy, for what it's worth, should be coherent. It isn't intended as a complete description of reality, but it should be neatly self-contained at a bare minimum. If the boundaries we place, to aid in comprehension, are incongruous, we haven't done ourselves any favors.

Correct. I am asking specifically about human constructs.
That's an interesting issue, but it's not the issue I'm addressing.

It's the answer to your question, actually. Here's the original:
The answer is that God designed biological mechanisms. "The trinity" is a crude, probably inaccurate reflection of the vast complexity of God. The answer that you're looking for is "the father", but it's not exactly accurate.

Again, this is a crude example. If I asked what held the hammer that pounded in the nail, the answer is, simultaneously:

a person
a carpenter
a hand
a glove
5 fingers
a man (or woman)
Bob (or whatever name is accurate)

Each of these has a different definition, but they're all part of the same. Also, you are probably not asking about a single nail, but about the building itself. Or maybe the entire city. So the answer then expands to include the architect, the planner, the government. Every question you answer reveals a wider scope and changes the question subtly.

God is God. He is the answer to all of the questions. That is, of course, absolute nonsense if it's approached from a direction that, being human, is inherently flawed.

So would you say that the attempt to hash the concepts of ID and the Trinity together has revealed that the Trinity is the faulty concept?
This is exactly how a productive resolution of cognitive dissonance between man-made philosophical constructs is supposed to work.

Any attempt to cram God into manmade limitations is faulty. But I'm still not sure why the Trinity and ID must be mutually exclusive.

I agree, and I'm not picky about where I apply that. (Bible, I'm looking at you...)

I'm not sure they are, but I've never heard an explanation of how they relate to one another.