We are no longer under the punishment of the "original" sin. Sins no longer carry from generation to generation. That is from the old covenant. The covenant Jesus made with us has us guilty for our own sins. Here is a couple verses to show this, more can be found if needed. You'll not find one thing about a child being guilty of their father's sin in the new testament, our new covenant.

2 Corinthians 5:10

10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Romans 1:32

32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Notice in Romans it states the ones DOING them.

Actually there is no such thing as "original sin" in the Old Covenant either. There is no concept of original sin in the Old Testament.

Deut. 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

The usual verses cited from the Old Testament talk about how the
effects of sin can last several generations but this is not the
same as "original sin".

The concept of original sin is usually taken from:

Romans 5:12-19 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: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous....

Of course this as to be interpreted too and personally I do not
see it as an argument for the existence of original sin. I interpret
this passage as allegorical.

The egg. The chicken came from an egg whose DNA patterned that chicken. But the chicken's mom, due to mutation, did not deliver the egg that matched her dna.

It doesn't matter whether it is dis-proven or not. The failure to disprove a suggestion does not lend credence to that suggestion. Is it testable? Is it falsifiable? And is there even reason, to begin with, to think it may be true?

semantically, it may matter when someone calls it a lie or says it is 'untrue'

depending upon ones standards of defining those terms 'lie' and 'untrue'


If I was accused of lying, I would expect the accuser to prove that there is a lie involved by disproving the 'truth' of what I said

likewise, if I was accused of saying something 'untrue'

Oh, I so hate it when those terms are confused. Humans are clearly and unambiguously one species, as well as one giant extended family, and yet we have many races. Even more so with dogs.

I have to wonder if people (not you!) who confuse species with race are trying to exaggerate the importance of race. While race delineations 'exists' in the sense of clear trends of groups having certain characteristics, it doesn't 'exist' with the same clarity that species delineations do, at least among animals (vs plants, bacteria, etc). I could say I'm a member of 4 or 5 different races, but I am only of one species.

I may be ignorant of non-biological uses of these terms... who confuses species with race? And in what context?

A: "Your mother was a hamster!"

B: "That's a lie!"

A: "Prove it isn't true, then!"

B: "I can't. My mother died years ago in a house fire that also consumed most evidence of her existence; the remainder was destroyed when our country was invaded by the nazis."

A: "Then don't call me a liar. You can't prove my claim false."

---------------------

A is obviously making a false claim, and our inability to directly, objectively, and absolutely disprove their claim is irrelevant.

Claiming that my mom was a hamster is just stupid, its inconsistent with everything we know about reproduction. IMO, its much like ID.


Most importantly, if someone has no evidence for their assertion, and they make their assertion then call out "You can't prove me wrong!" - they are just being silly. Its not as if all claims are viable until proven otherwise.

Cool! Since you seem, often, to not believe in the 'development of new species as a result of variation on previous existing species'... I'm curious on how you would imagine this situation (all of life being related) could arise.

That fact that we are all related seems to require that we all had a common ancestor; if both me and my neighbors cat had a common ancestor, who was not a shape-shifting cat-person, then how could generations of progeny yield both me and the cat - unless evolution was at work?

miriam webster

species: class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class <confessing sins in species and in number>


race:b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics



..the definitions of the english language do often interlap....

actually, your mother MAY have been a hamster,,,I cant prove it isnt true

UNLESS I can prove you have HUMAN DNA, which would negate you having come from a hamster

and I wouldnt go through the trouble because i tend to believe humans come from humans and I tend to believe that a person speaking to me is a human


,,but honestly, I could say their mother was an alien, and I may be right unless they could prove otherwise

if they couldnt , than it would be reasonable for them to say I have no proof of it, but they couldnt really say I was lying without evidence that I had some intent to deceive,,,,,

Yo Mama!

Thank you, I've never really looked into the "original" sin, only had supposed knowledge from other people. Guess I should have really looked into it before I spoke. I apologise for my post.

Romans 5:12-19
I interpret these verses as before Adam sinned there was no sin in this world. That is why the world was perfect, then sin entered the world and corrupted it. And through Jesus sin can be destroyed.

Looked into it a little deeper and found something interesting. It seems it's not just the father's sin passes on in that exact sense. Just the sin passes on until it is forgiven, if the children follow in the foot steps of their father.

Exodus 20:5 - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
--------

Deuteronomy 5:9 - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"

These are some of the passages I alluded to earlier where the sins of
one generation are said to affect later generations but it has nothing
to do with original sin.

For one thing it only references a couple of generations not going
on forever. The real point of those passages is that when you do
something wrong yourself it affects others and that is the extent
of this message. There certainly be no doubt that many sins will
affect the kids and grandkids in various ways. The only point of
those passages above is to try to make us think of how our deeds
affect others.

As far as direct responsibility is concerned there are many passages
like this one I cited earlier which state that each person is held
accountable only for their own sins.

Deut. 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

nobody, especially an evolutionary biologist, BELIEVES in evolution nor would he accept it as anything other than a highly plausible theory.


'a good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. if the predictions agrees with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct.'

stephen hawking, the universe in a nutshell. no, i don't have a damn internet link. had to type directly from the friggin' book.

Lol you're going into semantics, this i know, but for those who don't i'm glad you clarified.

False statements are lies regardless of whether the intent was to deceive. The word applies to both deliberately and accidentally false statements. By having low standards of evidence for reaching a conclusion, honest people often believe and propagate lies.

If you declare that my mother was a hamster, and that my father smelt of elderberries, you would be making a false statement regardless of whether I can 'prove' it by objective standards or not. I could then truthfully and appropriately accuse you of 'spreading lies'.

Notice that, in this situation, you would necessarily be shifting your standards of evidence; you would have concluded my mother was a hamster without it being 'proven', then you would be requiring that I 'prove' that she isn't. That's at the heart of the mis-used of logic at work here. Declaring something true, then saying "You can't prove it isn't" is no way to arrive at truth.

this assumes there is only one definition of lie

from miriam webster, this is clearly not the case

: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression

...INTENT can indeed be a significant factor


I think most people would see a difference between being misinformed(coming to a conclusion based upon faulty information),,,like how people think colds come from exposure to cold weather when they actually are the result of viruses.


and lying
(like If I were to claim Clinton was my father, knowing that it wasnt true)


I think , semantically, what people perceive when they hear that someone is 'lying' is that they have an intent to deceive

and when someone is called a 'liar', it also often conjures up the image of someone trying to decieve others,,,

now, what is TRUE is TRUE regardless of what we interpret it to be, but thats a whole other discussion,,

This is really interesting to me for several reasons. There is a use of 'species' that has nothing to do with genetics, or even life; I can say "what species of bicycle is that" and mean "what style" or "what type" - it didn't occur to me that people might confuse this use with the biological use, or use the term in this way towards humans.

It would be a legit use, but I have never in my life heard someone say "What species of human is that?" to mean "What general (non-biological) category of human is that?". I'm guessing that long ago, when people actually argued that blacks and whites were different species, somebody said "What species is he", and they did so under a false belief in the degree of biological differences.

I've heard "what species of car" and "what species of reagent" and many other non-biological uses, but I've never personally heard the completely non-biological use of the word species being applied to people.


But whats more interesting here, to me, is the definition for race applied to people that has nothing to do with genetics. I've known people to do this in everyday speech, but I didn't know it could be found in dictionaries. Its so weird to me, some people want to think that genetic-race matters in ways illogical and immoral, others think that genetic-race 'exists' with a sense of clear division that it doesn't have, while others want to deny, contrary to evidence, that genetic-race even exists at all, some see that bigotry based on cultural identification is wrong, others think that prejudice based on cultural identification is acceptable, and then all of the above gets confused further when when people confuse genetic-race with cultural identification. Of course they go hand in hand, but when we want to talk about what race 'is', whether it 'exists', whether it 'matters', what meaning should be applied to it, etc... being precise matters. People argue around and around without being clear on what they mean by their terms.

I'd still curious to see or hear of examples where people apply the terms 'race' and 'species' to humans interchangeably. I'm sure that it happens! Its just far outside of my experience in reading and talking to people.

Which assumes that? Did you even read what I wrote? I clearly indicated two uses that both qualify as lies. Please read what I wrote, and don't ascribe to me a thought process completely absent from my words.

If you think that intention to deceive is a necessary condition for a statement to be a lie, then you are the one who is using a limited set of definitions...while falsely stating that my words are based on the assumption that 'there is only one definition of lie'.

Check #3.