the original sin

withwonderingawe · Nov 25, 2015

The question of Adam and Eve having sex in the Garden of Eden came up in one of the discussions, Mormons believe Adam and Eve were like children and had no sexual desire until till they ate the fruit.

But some of those ridiculing us say Adam and Eve were having sex. They were roaming around naked in the Garden and having sex until they ate the fruit then they suddenly became ashamed of their nakedness and hid.

Now no children were born to them but hypothetically if Cain and Able had been born to them before they partook of the fruit and say they went several generations until one of them wandered up to the tree of knowledge and took a bite what would have happened?

Would the original sin be retroactive? Would everyone living suddenly be deemed sinful?

St_Worm2 · Nov 25, 2015

Hi WWA, that Adam/Eve affected our entire race is clearly seen in the fact that sin is universal among us. They were made in God's image, we were begotten in their's.

If your hypothetical happened instead of what actually occurred, then our race's progenitors would have suffered their fate alone. Their disobedience after the fact (if they ate of the tree in disobedience after giving birth to their children) could not affect their progeny who, in this fictional case, would have already been born w/o the stain of original sin.

This is all sterile conjecture however, so why do you ask? (it seems like this subject might be better suited for the "Conspiracy Theories" board .. or are you guys not allowed to post there :scratch:

)

To continue on with this hypothetical for a moment though

, I suppose if they had children both before AND after their disobedience finally happened, then we could potentially have two "strains/types" (if you will) of human beings, one begotten by Adam/Eve in God's original untarnished image, and a second, later "strain", begotten in our first parents' fallen image.

Again, what are you trying to get at here? Do you believe there is more than one type of human being on the planet today, IOW, a godly type (or race) on the one hand, and then a second, lesser race of human beings on the other?

I've been told that Mormons used to teach something along these lines about dark-skinned Africans, that they were indeed this second, lesser race of humans who did not have souls. I realize that is absolutely NOT what you teach today, but is there any truth to it historically :scratch:

Thanks!

--David

jimmyjimmy · Nov 25, 2015

withwonderingawe said:
Mormons believe Adam and Eve were like children and had no sexual desire until till they ate the fruit.

Mormons believe that sexual desire came in with sin. This is telling. Mormons see sexual desire as sinful/dirty. That explains a lot.

Mormons are incorrect. According to Genesis 1, God created man and woman, sex and the desire for it, and He did that before they ate the fruit.

"So God created mankind in his own image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. . .”

dogs4thewin · Nov 25, 2015

The part of sex that came in AFTER they ate the fruit had to do with wanting it OUTSIDE of marriage, which IS sinful.

drstevej · Nov 25, 2015

Mormons believe Adam and Eve were like children and had no sexual desire until till they ate the fruit.

There is zero biblical support for this.

But some of those ridiculing us say Adam and Eve were having sex.

My comment was that sex could not be the original sin since God told them to be fruitful and multiply. If your reference is to me it is misrepresentation. There is no mention of Adam and Eve having sex in the garden which means "there is no mention of Adam and Eve having sex in the garden."

Now no children were born to them but hypothetically

Speculation, leads to Heavenly Mom, etc.

Would the original sin be retroactive? Would everyone living suddenly be deemed sinful?

A meaningless speculation.

withwonderingawe · Nov 25, 2015

At my mom's today so working off my little phone and can't answer as I would wish but thank you for the replies, but I don't see that the question was actually answered. My problem is with the filthy rag doctrine. That because Adam ate of the fruit everyone born after him was born a filthy rag. We all carry the stain of sin
Adam put in motion the opportunity for us to sin but we are not sinners until we know the difference between right from wrong and choose wrong.

drstevej · Nov 25, 2015

withwonderingawe said:
At my mom's today so working off my little phone and can't answer as I would wish but thank you for the replies, but I don't see that the question was actually answered. My problem is with the filthy rag doctrine. That because Adam ate of the fruit everyone born after him was born a filthy rag. We all carry the stain of sin
Adam put in motion the opportunity for us to sin but we are not sinners until we know the difference between right from wrong and choose wrong.

Mormonism trumps Romans 5.
And Mormonism is restored Christianity?

A Mormon's eight birthday should not be a time of celebration. It is a day of reckoning.

jimmyjimmy · Nov 25, 2015

withwonderingawe said:
At my mom's today so working off my little phone and can't answer as I would wish but thank you for the replies, but I don't see that the question was actually answered. My problem is with the filthy rag doctrine. That because Adam ate of the fruit everyone born after him was born a filthy rag. We all carry the stain of sin
Adam put in motion the opportunity for us to sin but we are not sinners until we know the difference between right from wrong and choose wrong.

If what you say is correct, then why are there no sinless people? How is it that all people sin? Surely if millions of people were born morally neutral then at least a few would remain sinless.

Also, "filthy rags" is referring to our works, "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away." (Isaiah 64:6 ESV)

Lastly you must understand that Adam was our representative. He failed on behalf of us all. We suffer the consequences of his sin (but we would have done no better) just like a child suffers the consequences of a mother who is a crack addict or a father who is a drunk. This is a limited analogy, but it might help. We can't look at this in such an individualistic manner.

jimmyjimmy · Nov 25, 2015

drstevej said:
A Mormon's eight birthday should not be a time of celebration. It is a day of reckoning.

This is true. If I were a Mormon, I would really struggle with my children living to the age of 8. I would be torn, wishing assurance of salvation and a short life on earth or the gamble of a longer earthly existence with an opportunity to be lost eternally.

BigDaddy4 · Nov 25, 2015

withwonderingawe said:
The question of Adam and Eve having sex in the Garden of Eden came up in one of the discussions, Mormons believe Adam and Eve were like children and had no sexual desire until till they ate the fruit.

But some of those ridiculing us say Adam and Eve were having sex. They were roaming around naked in the Garden and having sex until they ate the fruit then they suddenly became ashamed of their nakedness and hid.

Now no children were born to them but hypothetically if Cain and Able had been born to them before they partook of the fruit and say they went several generations until one of them wandered up to the tree of knowledge and took a bite what would have happened?

Would the original sin be retroactive? Would everyone living suddenly be deemed sinful?

First off, it was a Mormon who brought this into the discussion you are referring to, not a Christian. And he did so with no source to back up his assertion. So your thread is based on a faulty premise that is not supported by any references to mainstream Christianity beliefs.

Second, you bring in the Mormon POV on whether or not Adam and Eve had sex before or after the fall. This forum is not for discussing the morman pov but about challenging the "Christian theology, beliefs and practices".

This thread seems to be against the SoP.

jimmyjimmy · Nov 25, 2015

BigDaddy4 said:
This thread seems to be against the SoP.

agreed.

withwonderingawe · Nov 25, 2015

I'm questioning the original sin doctrine. I was given a little pamphlet once that told me I was a filthy rag to God. I was so taken back , it made me sick. I could not imagine why God would want to create filthy rags. It also said all I had to do was sign my name on the line and I would be saved.

Hammster · Nov 25, 2015

withwonderingawe said:
I'm questioning the original sin doctrine. I was given a little pamphlet once that told me I was a filthy rag to God. I was so taken back , it made me sick. I could not imagine why God would want to create filthy rags.

Then you need to make an argument opposing it.

jimmyjimmy · Nov 25, 2015

withwonderingawe said:
I'm questioning the original sin doctrine. I was given a little pamphlet once that told me I was a filthy rag to God. I was so taken back , it made me sick. I could not imagine why God would want to create filthy rags.

I don't have the pamphlet to see if the content was biblical or not, but you are again saying things that are not true of Christian theology. God didn't create filthy rags. When He created man and woman, He pronounced them "good".

BigDaddy4 · Nov 25, 2015

withwonderingawe said:
I'm questioning the original sin doctrine. I was given a little pamphlet once that told me I was a filthy rag to God. I was so taken back , it made me sick. I could not imagine why God would want to create filthy rags. It also said all I had to do was sign my name on the line and I would be saved.

Your "filthy rag" issue isn't even mentioned in the OP. The OP was about Adam and Eve having sex and referenced a discussion on another thread in which a MORMON poster made an unsubstantiated and incorrect statement about a certain alleged belief of Christians. And you ran with it here. Please rethink what your intentions are...

withwonderingawe · Nov 25, 2015

BigDaddy4 said:
Your "filthy rag" issue isn't even mentioned in the OP. The OP was about Adam and Eve having sex and referenced a discussion on another thread in which a MORMON poster made an unsubstantiated and incorrect statement about a certain alleged belief of Christians. And you ran with it here. Please rethink what your intentions are...

I don't think you read my first posting all the way through, I said;

"Now no children were born to them but hypothetically if Cain and Able had been born to them before they partook of the fruit and say they went several generations until one of them wandered up to the tree of knowledge and took a bite what would have happened?
Would the original sin be retroactive? Would everyone living suddenly be deemed sinful?"

So what would have happened if Adam's great grand son Mahalaleel had been the one to part take of the fruit? Would Adam and all of mankind suddenly become sinful or would it have been Mahalaleel' descendants only. I hope you can understand my point. The problem wouldn't even be there in Mormon Doctrine.

To us a baby which dies is perfect, his spirit returns to the presence of the Father. My foster son does not have the mental capacity to sin or to choose Jesus, so he can not sin. How does your doctrine work this through?

Hammster · Nov 25, 2015

withwonderingawe said:
I don't think you read my first posting all the way through, I said;

"Now no children were born to them but hypothetically if Cain and Able had been born to them before they partook of the fruit and say they went several generations until one of them wandered up to the tree of knowledge and took a bite what would have happened?
Would the original sin be retroactive? Would everyone living suddenly be deemed sinful?"

So what would have happened if Adam's great grand son Mahalaleel had been the one to part take of the fruit? Would Adam and all of mankind suddenly become sinful or would it have been Mahalaleel' descendants only. I hope you can understand my point. The problem wouldn't even be there in Mormon Doctrine.

To us a baby which dies is perfect, his spirit returns to the presence of the Father. My foster son does not have the mental capacity to sin or to choose Jesus, so he can not sin. How does your doctrine work this through?

It's a hypothetical situation. While it may be fun to peruse, it will not address any reality.

withwonderingawe · Nov 25, 2015

St_Worm2 said:
Hi WWA, that Adam/Eve affected our entire race is clearly seen in the fact that sin is universal among us. They were made in God's image, we were begotten in their's.

If your hypothetical happened instead of what actually occurred, then our race's progenitors would have suffered their fate alone. Their disobedience after the fact (if they ate of the tree in disobedience after giving birth to their children) could not affect their progeny who, in this fictional case, would have already been born w/o the stain of original sin.

This is all sterile conjecture however, so why do you ask? (it seems like this subject might be better suited for the "Conspiracy Theories" board .. or are you guys not allowed to post there )

To continue on with this hypothetical for a moment though , I suppose if they had children both before AND after their disobedience finally happened, then we could potentially have two "strains/types" (if you will) of human beings, one begotten by Adam/Eve in God's original untarnished image, and a second, later "strain", begotten in our first parents' fallen image.

Again, what are you trying to get at here? Do you believe there is more than one type of human being on the planet today, IOW, a godly type (or race) on the one hand, and then a second, lesser race of human beings on the other?

I've been told that Mormons used to teach something along these lines about dark-skinned Africans, that they were indeed this second, lesser race of humans who did not have souls. I realize that is absolutely NOT what you teach today, but is there any truth to it historically

Thanks!

--David

No Mormons never taught that black people didn't have souls, there is even a quote from Joseph Smith saying they do.

withwonderingawe · Nov 25, 2015

thatbrian said:
This is true. If I were a Mormon, I would really struggle with my children living to the age of 8. I would be torn, wishing assurance of salvation and a short life on earth or the gamble of a longer earthly existence with an opportunity to be lost eternally.

There is an atheist website called losingmyreligion.com and they have an Essay called;
Why Christians must believe that babies should be killed, by Emery

I'll give you the main point of his argument which I believe is a little tongue in cheek.

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Matt. 16:26

.......Most Christians believe babies that die go to heaven. When Christian parents lose an infant, they usually console themselves with the thought that their child is now with the angels in heaven, and they will be united with them one day. Few lament that their baby is roasting with the devil in hell. Even though the sin nature argument might support the notion that all who have not accepted Jesus must lose their souls, and there are some Christians that believe this, most cannot justify the idea that God would let an infant burn in hell just because it died before having an opportunity to be saved.

So that raises a question: should babies be killed to ensure the salvation of their souls? Remember, almost 3 out of 4 babies that are born will lose their souls. Yet we can ensure this does not happen by ending their lives before they reach the age of accountability. It is a choice between preserving a life and probably losing a soul, or sacrificing a life and saving the soul. According to Jesus, saving the soul would be the more important thing.

What about the commandment "Thou shalt not kill?" Well aside from the fact that this commandment is routinely disregarded in instances such as war, and saving a soul is certainly more important than determining where the boundaries of your property are drawn, Christian doctrine itself lands heavily on the side of killing these infants, despite the 6th commandment. Remember, what matters most to God according to Christians, is what you believe, not what you do. Christians can violate the other 9 commandments without fear of losing their own souls. And violating this one really doesn't get you in trouble either, so long as you believe in Jesus (my pastor used to say that Christians who broke commandments didn't lose their salvation, but might be "punished" with a smaller mansion in heaven). Besides, all you had to do was ask for forgiveness, and God would erase that sin, and remove it "as far as the east is from the west" (also quoting my pastor).

The issue then, becomes this: even though Christians shouldn't kill babies, so long as they believe in Jesus, they will still remain saved if they do, and if they confess their sin, God will forgive this transgression. And, the result of killing this baby is the guaranteed salvation of its soul, which Jesus said was more important than its life anyway."

jimmyjimmy · Nov 25, 2015

withwonderingawe said:
There is an atheist website called losingmyreligion.com and they have an Essay called;
Why Christians must believe that babies should be killed, by Emery

I'll give you the main point of his argument which I believe is a little tongue in cheek.

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Matt. 16:26

.......Most Christians believe babies that die go to heaven. When Christian parents lose an infant, they usually console themselves with the thought that their child is now with the angels in heaven, and they will be united with them one day. Few lament that their baby is roasting with the devil in hell. Even though the sin nature argument might support the notion that all who have not accepted Jesus must lose their souls, and there are some Christians that believe this, most cannot justify the idea that God would let an infant burn in hell just because it died before having an opportunity to be saved.

So that raises a question: should babies be killed to ensure the salvation of their souls? Remember, almost 3 out of 4 babies that are born will lose their souls. Yet we can ensure this does not happen by ending their lives before they reach the age of accountability. It is a choice between preserving a life and probably losing a soul, or sacrificing a life and saving the soul. According to Jesus, saving the soul would be the more important thing.

What about the commandment "Thou shalt not kill?" Well aside from the fact that this commandment is routinely disregarded in instances such as war, and saving a soul is certainly more important than determining where the boundaries of your property are drawn, Christian doctrine itself lands heavily on the side of killing these infants, despite the 6th commandment. Remember, what matters most to God according to Christians, is what you believe, not what you do. Christians can violate the other 9 commandments without fear of losing their own souls. And violating this one really doesn't get you in trouble either, so long as you believe in Jesus (my pastor used to say that Christians who broke commandments didn't lose their salvation, but might be "punished" with a smaller mansion in heaven). Besides, all you had to do was ask for forgiveness, and God would erase that sin, and remove it "as far as the east is from the west" (also quoting my pastor).

The issue then, becomes this: even though Christians shouldn't kill babies, so long as they believe in Jesus, they will still remain saved if they do, and if they confess their sin, God will forgive this transgression. And, the result of killing this baby is the guaranteed salvation of its soul, which Jesus said was more important than its life anyway."

This is getting a little crazy.

the original sin

Well-Known Member

Simul Justus et Peccator

Pardoned Rebel

dog lover

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Well-Known Member

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Pardoned Rebel

Pardoned Rebel

It's a new season...

Pardoned Rebel

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Pardoned Rebel

It's a new season...

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Pardoned Rebel

Similar threads