Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Wrong if you hold to the Protestant and Catholic view that Adam was our rep. And that view is based on Paul's claim that we all sinned in Adam.Also what he said. Adam and Eve were the ones that corrupted the world but it is each and everyone of us that have our own personal sins. And it is those sins that God punishes us for. Not the sins of Adam. Adam has to deal with his own sins.
Ok let's be precise. In my view Adam was the first human. His soul was new. It was not a fallen angel. Everything prior to Adam was an animal in my view, and my claim is that animal souls are fallen angels. Otherwise, you end up with a God, supposedly maximally kind, allowing innocent species to suffer for, say, 200 million years at least. I don't know why anyone would prefer a position that casts aspersions on the goodness of God.I don't believe fallen angels became human.
All Christians including myself believe that God is good and proclaim His goodness.
But what if our doctrines inadvertently extrapolate otherwise? The church clings to two views of Adam:
(1) Adam was our representative. ( Catholics and Protestants)
(2) Adam's sin didn't incriminate us but did have horribly painful consequences for our world. (Orthodox).
I suppose a third view exists.
(3) Adam never literally existed. Biologically we evolved into this horrible world.
All three views unacceptably extrapolate to a God who is hardly the epitome of kindness and thus is either comparatively evil or totally evil. After all, given the power to create a world, any of us would have exercised more kindness than 1,2, and 3.
2,000 years of investigation have demonstrated that only one solution is possible. And the church is well aware of it but has rejected it because it flatly contradicts their dogmatic assumption of an immaterial soul indivisible into parts.
The obvious solution is that God only made one material soul named Adam (even Eve was a physical subsection extracted from Adam's ribs). After Adam sinned, God removed most of that material soul from his body unto a place of suspended animation. When each of us was later conceived, God mated a separate microscopic portion of that sin-stained soul to each of our bodies. In other words, YOU are 100% Adam (not a mixture). YOU are the one who freely chose to eat of the forbidden fruit (although none of us currently remember doing so).
P.S. This remedy isn't a complete solution to the problem of evil. The larger issue is, why would a perfectly kind God allow temptation in the first place? Historically the church has made a pretense of providing satisfactory answers but has patently failed. Problem is I can't discuss this aspect on the current forum as my solution falls under Controversial Theology.
I thought I responded to this when I pointed out, in order to be kind, we must minimize the suffering of others at our own expense/suffering.God did not come to do your definition of love but His and it had nothing to do with minimize suffering for we suffer if we love God
Ok what position do you take, for example any of the 3 choices mentioned in the OP? Most posters on this thread haven't fully clarified where they stand, so it's hard for me to respond appropriately.God is not punishing you for your ancestor's sins. He is working with you to address YOUR OWN sinfulness ...
... we all have the same choice(s) that Adam and Eve had.
I'm not satisfied with this but rather than respond directly, I'd like to refocus on Adam. Could you clarify where you stand? The Catholic/Protestant view? The Orthodox view?He could have made humanity completely perfect without a speck of sin in them. He could have just made humanity 100% obey him without question. But then the creations that he loved so much would have never existed and be given the CHANCE to choose differently. Mankind that reject him only choose hell for themselves. God never chose it for them. God has already made it possible for all of humanity to be saved and God desired all of humanity to be saved just as it was when God originally created us. And God still enjoys seeing each and every one of us grow up and watching our lives go by. Yes, even the ones who reject him. Even those of us who sin against him.
Gods original plan was for all of humanity to live with him here on Earth. That's why he created each and every one of us. If sin had never happened we would have all been born into paradise. But sin did happen.
Before Christ died on the cross there was no hope for humanity. His sacrifice made it possible for the people he loved so much to be saved. And many people WILL be saved. When John went to heaven he counted the amount of the saved from every tribe, nation, and language a number that no man could count. So I dont see how you can think that God was unfair or evil. He saved as much of humanity as he could have. And like I said even when he has to send people to the lake of fire he will still love them. That's the sad part of the truth. Not only could they have been saved and spent an eternity with a kind and loving God but they also chose to be apart from a God who will ALWAYS love them throughout eternity.
Wrong if you hold to the Protestant and Catholic view that Adam was our rep. And that view is based on Paul's claim that we all sinned in Adam.
Paul didn't say that we all sinned through Adam, though he did say that we all had sinned ...Wrong if you hold to the Protestant and Catholic view that Adam was our rep. And that view is based on Paul's claim that we all sinned in Adam.
Adam was a perfect representative of the human race ... in that he did what any of us would have, given enough time and opportunity. This is borne out by the fact that ALL of us have sinned.Ok what position do you take, for example any of the 3 choices mentioned in the OP? Most posters on this thread haven't fully clarified where they stand, so it's hard for me to respond appropriately.
Except that agents with free will do not unanimously act alike. At least there's no guarantee of that and, with 100 billion free agents, to claim that they all happened to make the same choice as Adam is unlikely. Consider the angels. Many of them chose to fall, many did not. They do not act alike.Adam was a perfect representative of the human race ... in that he did what any of us would have, given enough time and opportunity. This is borne out by the fact that ALL of us have sinned.
When Paul said that all sinned, there were plenty of fetuses in the wombs of his day. When did they sin? He is clear. They sinned in Adam.Paul didn't say that we all sinned through Adam, though he did say that we all had sinned ...
Romans 5
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death has passed to all men, because all have sinned --
You're missing the collective sense of the parallel. Christ's one act brought righteousness to many. Adam's one act brought death to many.Paul didn't say that we all sinned through Adam, though he did say that we all had sinned ...
Romans 5
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death has passed to all men, because all have sinned --
The problem with sin ... is that we, as God's creation, are broken (or incomplete). One could think of of sinfulness ... as a phase ... in the progression of our growth to God's likeness. You may also see our sinfulness ... as being due to a lack in experience. This is something we all share.Except that agents with free will do not unanimously act alike. At least there's no guarantee of that and, with 100 billion free agents, to claim that they all happened to make the same choice as Adam is unlikely. Consider the angels. Many of them chose to fall, many did not. They do not act alike.
If all beings act alike, that's not freedom, it's caused by the nature of their design whose fault lies with the Creator.
Furthermore, if we all act alike, then you should pay for my sins as well. If I go commit a crime, you should be punished for it because, if we all act alike, you would have done the same thing.
By that same token, if we all act alike, God cannot differentiate between servants. He cannot praise one servant for a job well done while chastising another for disobedience or even mediocrity.
You've also get exegetical problems. Again, when Paul said that all sinned, there were plenty of fetuses in the wombs of his day. When did they sin? He is clear. They sinned in Adam.
If all men are born innocent, untainted by Adam, then Paul is wrong to suggest that they need a savior. All they need to do is walk faithfully.
Let's suppose we posit an age of accountability - let's suppose it's 5 years. If a child is still innocent at 5 years and then dies, didn't he make it to heaven by good works? Why the need for the cross, in his case?
You may as well say that Adam's sin ... ushered humankind into phase 2 of God's program of spiritual growth ...You're missing the collective sense of the parallel. Christ's one act brought righteousness to many. Adam's one act brought death to many.
You're saying the primary basis for our condemnation is a series of individual acts. That's not Paul's claim. Yes there have been, since then, many such acts. But that primary basis is the one act of Adam, according to the parallel.
In these last couple of posts of mine, your response has been shallow at best. Hardly a convincing defense of your position.You may as well say that Adam's sin ... ushered humankind into phase 2 of God's program of spiritual growth ...
Isn't God evil, if He allowed Adam's fall to harm us?
We inherited a sin nature from Adam & Eve ... that is we are more inclined to sin than not .... each of us sin yes ... and each of us are responsible for our sin and are accountable for them.
Romans 14:12
So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
That's not an argument ... that's an opinion.In these last couple of posts of mine, your response has been shallow at best. Hardly a convincing defense of your position.
Because you didn't address my arguments. Does that help?That's not an argument ... that's an opinion.
Tell me WHY my understanding is invalid, in your view ...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?