Olivia of Fresh Modesty on original sin

[silvia]

So, I actually like some of Olivia's outfits (though fewer of the ones with gratuitous T-shirts underneath), but her theology is sort of off the deep end (bolding mine):

"The consistent-with-the-text view of original sin is that we all sinned in the sense that in some actual way we participated in Adam's actual sin. There are 2 ways this can be true, and the more I think about this, the more it helps the whole Bible make deep sense.

1) Adam is our federal head. Our covenant head. This is why it was Adam and not Eve who brought sin into the world. Hosea 6:7 says, "Like Adam, they transgressed the covenant with me..." Like a king declares war and the whole nation is at war, so Adam sinned and we all sinned. In our Adam & Christ test, we participated in Adams sin, so we participated in Christ's death on the cross and His justification.

2) Adam is our natural head. We all come from Adam-- we were in his loins when he sinned. Hebrews 7:9-10 talks about Levi giving tithes to Melchizedek through Abraham "for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him"... Levi lived 400 years after Abraham, yet it was all the same to God. Thinking of Adam & Christ, we were there when Adam sinned and we were there when Christ was crucified, buried, and raised."

freshmodesty.blogspot.com/2013/08/original-sin-in-coral-turquoise.html

Uhhh... yeah. This makes about as much sense as saying that post-war Germans are culpable for the Nazi genocides, or that the daughter of a murderer is responsible for his crime. Because they came from the bad people's loins, y'know.

[Arete]

Olivia needs to stick to clothes and leave theology to the theologians. There are churches that do not believe people share any guilt for Adam's sin, and no church I know of recognize Adam as their head.

Metaphors Olivia. Look them up.

[formergothardite]

Who knew that original sin came in coral and turquoise? :lol: At least that is what the title of her blog post makes it look like.

[anjulibai]

Something that I never understand about original sin: if God could make Mary be conceived without original sin, why didn't he just do that for all of humanity?

[Pam]

"The consistent-with-the-text view of original sin is that we all sinned in the sense that in some actual way we participated in Adam's actual sin. There are 2 ways this can be true, and the more I think about this, the more it helps the whole Bible make deep sense.

1) Adam is our federal head. Our covenant head. This is why it was Adam and not Eve who brought sin into the world. Hosea 6:7 says, "Like Adam, they transgressed the covenant with me..." Like a king declares war and the whole nation is at war, so Adam sinned and we all sinned. In our Adam & Christ test, we participated in Adams sin, so we participated in Christ's death on the cross and His justification.

2) Adam is our natural head. We all come from Adam-- we were in his loins when he sinned. Hebrews 7:9-10 talks about Levi giving tithes to Melchizedek through Abraham "for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him"... Levi lived 400 years after Abraham, yet it was all the same to God. Thinking of Adam & Christ, we were there when Adam sinned and we were there when Christ was crucified, buried, and raised."

The more I think about that, the more I strain my brain trying to make deep sense out of it....or any sense out of it, for that matter.

[erunerune]

She does sort of immediately trivialize whatever that week's sermon was by lumping it in with her outfit selection. Not that I care about either, mind you.

[dairyfreelife]

Yes, just like all criminals produce criminals.

[polecat]

Yes, just like all criminals produce criminals.

This isn't far from what some believe. I knew one girl who had been adopted, and her adoptive parents insisted she was no better than a "whore" -- their words, not mine -- because she was conceived out of wedlock. Horrible people they were.

My mom always insisted my sister developed T1 diabetes because SHE was conceived out of wedlock.

The sins of the father, you know. We're all apparently condemned for things our parents did.

[silvia]

This isn't far from what some believe. I knew one girl who had been adopted, and her adoptive parents insisted she was no better than a "whore" -- their words, not mine -- because she was conceived out of wedlock. Horrible people they were.

My mom always insisted my sister developed T1 diabetes because SHE was conceived out of wedlock.

The sins of the father, you know. We're all apparently condemned for things our parents did.

True, this mindset is depressingly familiar. It's kind of like what Gothard believes about why you shouldn't adopt, right -- because the children carry the sins of their forebears, or some such?

[treehugger]

I guess, the part that bother's me about people who believe in original sin, is that while they believe sin came to all people through one man - they refuse to believe that because one man died (you know, the Son of God, the most powerful being ever...) all people will be saved. It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, even Paul said something to that effect in Romans 5:12-21

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all 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 those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I guess it just so much more fun being a special :special-flake: Much better than having to wonder whether or not Jesus' dying on the cross was actually enough to save everyone - or whether their God isn't that powerful :roll:

[EmiGirl]

Olivia needs to stick to clothes and leave theology to the theologians. There are churches that do not believe people share any guilt for Adam's sin, and no church I know of recognize Adam as their head.

Metaphors Olivia. Look them up.

:naughty: But the Bible doesn't contain anything that shouldn't be taken literally! /sarcasm

[Trynn]

:naughty: But the Bible doesn't contain anything that shouldn't be taken literally! /sarcasm

Except for when it is OBVIOUSLY a metaphor. :roll:

[dairyfreelife]

True, this mindset is depressingly familiar. It's kind of like what Gothard believes about why you shouldn't adopt, right -- because the children carry the sins of their forebears, or some such?

Yeah, except it's not true, so those who say otherwise are delusional. Do we send a child to jail who's parent committed a crime? No? Why not? Because they didn't do the crime, the parent did. I mean, if children carry the sins of the father, then shouldn't they be sent to jail also? :evil-eye:

[salex]

True, this mindset is depressingly familiar. It's kind of like what Gothard believes about why you shouldn't adopt, right -- because the children carry the sins of their forebears, or some such?

Might explain why Gothard has no kids.

[freejugar]

I jus't can't with her ramblings next to her vapid posts about outfits. She must think she's so deep.

[DefraudedbyGothard]

She is just parroting part of the Reformed doctrine of Federal Headship. A.W. Pink was big on this and Doug Wilson and his brand of cult push this idea. It makes men totally in charge of the universe. Which leads to Doug Wilson's assinine remarks about men colonizing women because of their Federal Headship. :cray-cray:

When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.

[Arete]

She is just parroting part of the Reformed doctrine of Federal Headship. A.W. Pink was big on this and Doug Wilson and his brand of cult push this idea. It makes men totally in charge of the universe. Which leads to Doug Wilson's assinine remarks about men colonizing women because of their Federal Headship. :cray-cray:

Well then you obviously haven't tried hard enough. Could these men broadcast any more loudly how badly they perform in the sack?

[Jenny]

I thought only Catholics believed in original sin. I was totally confused by Olivia's post.

ETA: Maybe Orthodox believe in it too.

[DefraudedbyGothard]

I thought only Catholics believed in original sin. I was totally confused by Olivia's post.

Actually most traditional christian doctrines include original sin,but it is not federal headship, simply that Adam and Eve are the original family and so the nature to sin is inherited by men/women. Then you get the Calvinists that add total depravity, that is a somewhat different take and this can be carried on to federal headship. :dance:

I just had a thought, if this is Fresh Modesty what is day old modesty? or maybe last year's modesty, or moldy modesty, ...

[Coconut Flan]

I thought only Catholics believed in original sin. I was totally confused by Olivia's post.

ETA: Maybe Orthodox believe in it too.

Orthodox passed on original sin. Personal sins are sufficient. I believe it was St Augustine who introduced the concept of original sin. I could easily be misremembering though.

Thanks for the note on total depravity.

[dairyfreelife]

Well then you obviously haven't tried hard enough. Could these men broadcast any more loudly how badly they perform in the sack?

Gonna have to agree with you there. That's a very bad and sick way to view sex, especially as the Bible itself talks about such as the joining of two as one. I can't say I've had non-egalitarian sex since it's not about control, it's about pleasing the other person and ourselves. This view is disturbing because it sounds like a justification for rape. What man wants to penetrate, conquer and colonize the woman?

Rephrasing that...what decent man wants to penetrate, conquer and colonize a woman? None I've known anyway. What a shitty sex life this man and those who follow him must have.

[Arete]

Orthodox passed on original sin. Personal sins are sufficient. I believe it was St Augustine who introduced the concept of original sin. I could easily be misremembering though.

Thanks for the note on total depravity.

Yep, it was Augustine's writings that were the basis of the doctrine, and it filtered into Protestantism through the Roman Catholic Church.

[Letgo]

I thought only Catholics believed in original sin. I was totally confused by Olivia's post.

Other mainstream Christian religions believe in original sin. Catholics believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was born without sin. She is the immaculate conception. Lots of people think the term immaculate conception refers to Jesus, but it doesn't. It's Mary, who was not born with original sin, according to Catholicism. Perfect from conception on.

[Pam]

In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.

Well THAT's not hardly rapey at all

/sarcasm

[salex]

When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.

Wow. so he agrees with the ebil feminist (Was it Andrea Dworkin) from the 80s/90s who wrote that "all heterosexual sex is rape".. and he likes it though he's sure his wife does not. Has he even heard of the concept of female orgasm? He is indeed a tool among tools.

Apparently his sex life is so bad that he does not understand the ways in which the male can be consumed by the female, how the female can envelop the male, surround him, control him and (to quote Dr. Strangelove) rob him of his essence.

I guess, since he believes it can't be made into a egalitarian pleasuring party, he isn't one who does anything in the sack for his wife's pleasure. Perhaps he is not attracted to the female form enough to spend any time enjoying it when he can close his eyes, think of a manly romp and ram it home as quickly as possible.

Edit to add-- isn't he the one who says women shouldn't be too friendly with other women or talk too much to them. I suspect he doesn't want his wife ever comparing notes on what goes on in the bedroom with other couples.