the original sin

[BigDaddy4]

I sort of feel like my argument is being lost. Let me try again.

If all men become sinners because Adam fell what would have happened to mankind if he had not fallen, logic says then children born to him would not be sinners. No one would feel envy, no one would take something that didn’t belong to him. The desire to sin would not exist.

So now let’s say his grandchild got curious and Satan successfully tempted him and he partook of the fruit what would happen? If we’re going to be consistent and if God is the same yesterday today and forever then wouldn’t that sin have to be retroactive, Adam would then also become a sinner and be bared from God for something he did not do.

All of this goes against Eze 18
“ 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

From the New Testament
Matt 12
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

2Cor 5
9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
10 For 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.

I have a problem with the Evangelical and I guess traditional concept of the fall and how we all become sinners.

Perhaps the problem is with your argument (or lack thereof), not that it's being lost. So far, your posts have been random and scattered, and some (most?) of which are not based on Christian doctrine, beliefs, or practices. For example, your above "what if" scenario of Adam not being responsible for the fall but his grandson instead is not a Christian doctrine, belief, or practice. It should be taken to a discussion forum, not an apologetics forum. It is not in line with this forum's SoP, which you continue to violate.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Perhaps the problem is with your argument (or lack thereof), not that it's being lost. So far, your posts have been random and scattered, and some (most?) of which are not based on Christian doctrine, beliefs, or practices. For example, your above "what if" scenario of Adam not being responsible for the fall but his grandson instead is not a Christian doctrine, belief, or practice. It should be taken to a discussion forum, not an apologetics forum. It is not in line with this forum's SoP, which you continue to violate.

Perhaps deep down you can see the flaw in your thinking and that's why you refuse to answer the question?

 

[BigDaddy4]

Perhaps deep down you can see the flaw in your thinking and that's why you refuse to answer the question?

No, I refuse to answer the question for 2 reasons: 1) It's a non-sensical question that is not based on any Christian belief, only heresay based on another MORMON's incorrect assumption that it was and you ran with it; and 2) it is against this particular sub-forum's SoP to pose such questions.

Therefore, I suggest that you pose the question in another sub-forum like the "Debate Non-Christian Religions" or "Christianity and World Religions" forums and see what response you get.

 

[bling]

Personally, I don't believe Adam and Eve were literal, historical figures.



If we do that where do we start believing the Bible narrative, at what point do we say now I believe this story.

I believe the story is real but it’s placed in the context of an allegory type setting.

Jesus “…was foreordained before the foundation of the world,” 1Peter 1

So the fall was preplanned, he didn’t set the fall in motion without having a plan to save us first. Adam did represent us, he and Eve made the decision to partake of to fruit for us. How much they understood of what they were doing we’ll never know.

God said let us make man in our image and after our likeness, once Adam partook of the fruit the Lord says man has become like one of us to know good from evil. Must have been part of the plan. Or do you think it was an accident?

I think of the command not to eat of the fruit more like me warning my granddaughter, ‘don’t touch hot!’ I know full well she must someday touch the hot oven for her to understand and appreciate what hot is.

You have asked a lot of good questions and brought up some interesting alternatives.

When talking with nonbelievers about the Garden scenario: I do not press the concept of taking it literally, but go over the message.

The New Testament writers speak of Adam and Eve as being real people and not allegorically, so should we trust their insight?

Who parented (or programmed) Adam and Eve to adult maturity (knowing the meaning of words, knowing how to name the animals, knowing how to treat each other, knowing how to tend the garden)?

Was God a really good parent to Adam and Eve?

How could it be fair for Adam and Eve to negatively impact the rest of us, if they were not the very best representatives we could possibly have?

If I felt I could have done better than Adam and Eve, than has God treated me unfairly, by not putting me a Garden type scenario?

You make a big deal of the fact we have after they leave the Garden: “Gen 4: 1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain…”, but we do know it was not a virgin birth, so does the fact we do not have it expressly said earlier “they had sex”, mean they did not have sex earlier?

Christ’s crucifixion was foreordained, so does that mean everything was foreordained or could somethings just be foreknown by God but not made to happen that way by God (some limited free will acts by man)?

I with my limited knowledge of man could tell God before placing man in the Garden situation: “Man will eventually sin under his own power.” So does that mean God made Adam and Eve to sin?

Sin was inevitable, but was sin also necessary?

Is sin man’s big number one problem or is the problem; getting mature adults to humbly accept God’s charity (Love/mercy/grace/help) in the simple act of humbly accepting God’s forgiveness as pure charity?

Since Adam and Eve sinned with the “nature” they had would our nature have to change in order for us to sin?

Adam and Eve’s sin brought about some curses and hardships, but being disciplined hurts while going through it, but if done with Love and correctly accepted should it not benefit the child?

Is death in and of itself “bad”?

If we understand the objective, was the garden scenario a lousy (impossible) place for mature adults to fulfill their earthly objective?

Would you prefer to be in a place where your eternal close relationship with God was dependent on your personal ability to obey (the Garden) or be in a place where your eternal close relationship with God was dependent on your humbly accepting His charity (where you are now)?

 

[juvenissun]

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

Do not imaging anything else, such as sex, which plays no role in this case. Only focus on the nature of punishment of sin:

In the OT time, the punishment of a sin could last for several generations. This is clearly stated in many commandments in the OT. So, the punishment of sin of father will be passed down to (innocent ?) offsprings.

Adam sinned and is punished. It is only reasonable that God would treat all his offsprings (born before and after his sinful act) as sinful people and be punished the same way all together. This action is not retroactive, but is proactive. Everyone got kicked out of the Garden is sinful because of Adam's sin.

The rest of imaginations are not relevant to this issue.

 

[juvenissun]

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

.......Most Christians believe babies that die go to heaven.

This is wrong.
So, the rests are all wrong.

When a baby died, he goes back to what he was and to where he came from.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

You are absolutely right. God creates man (Adam) as a perfect being.
You know the rest of the story.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

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."

Regardless if most Christians believe babies who die automatically go to heaven, I am not aware of any verse in the Bible that says so.

 

[bling]

Regardless if most Christians believe babies who die automatically go to heaven, I am not aware of any verse in the Bible that says so.

So with your understanding of God's Love what would He do with them?

 

[Qwertyui0p]

So with your understanding of God's Love what would He do with them?

I would think it would depend on what they would have chosen if they'd grown up

 

[bling]

I would think it would depend on what they would have chosen if they'd grown up

Where they supposed to have grown up in some "original plan A"?
Why did God allow them to die?
Think about it: You are saying God can fairly/justly send to hell an unborn child who has never sinned or done anything wrong under your understanding of a God who is Love itself, do you really feel that way?