Should all people be blamed for Adam's sin?

[polonius]

At the beginning of the Bible, we are told that Adam and Eve sinned. ("Original Sin")

And all future generations inherited their guilt.

Is that true?

And wasn't that rather unjust of God?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 48 by ttruscott]




[center]
According to JW, newborn babies can blaspheme and reject theology.[/center]

What sin exactly is a newborn guilty of committing?

Either the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit by rejecting the claims of YHWH to be our creator GOD as the lies of a false god making them reprobate
OR
the rebellion of some few of the elect against the judgement against the reprobate as unloving, too quickly decided or too harsh, etc.

NEWBORN BABIES DO THAT?

All are born sinners (orthodox doctrine) is the same as 'Only sinners are born on earth' but with a twist in the pce direction.

____________

Question:

• 
  
  Yeah, we all GET that you believe that, but WHAT SINS do ALL newborn babies commit?
  
  

____________

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 49 by ttruscott]





[center]Babies dispute JW theology[/center]

RESPONSE: How very unjust of God to hold a newborn guilty of a sin he did not commit!

I agree and that is why , if you actually read my posts, I reject this representation of how we came to be sinners at birth! Are we there yet???

I just read this:


"Either the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit by rejecting the claims of YHWH to be our creator GOD as the lies of a false god making them reprobate
OR
the rebellion of some few of the elect against the judgement against the reprobate as unloving, too quickly decided or too harsh, etc. "

____________

Question:

• 
  
  What are wee little cutsie wootsie babies guilty of again?
  
  Blasphemy?
  Theological disagreements?
  
  

____________

[JehovahsWitness]

[center]Babies dispute JW theology[/center]

[center]
According to JW, newborn babies can blaspheme and reject theology.[/center]

Why are Jehovah's Witnesses being mentioned here? From what I can see no Witness has thus far participated in this thread, you are discussing with ttruscott who, as far as I know, isn't one of Jehovah's Witness and does not share our beliefs in this point, and debating a theology we JWs don't hold. So again, why these headings?

Confused,

JW

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 52 by JehovahsWitness]

Why are Jehovah's Witnesses being mentioned here?

Ahhh sometimes, I just can't keep track of what particular theological stand people have. Maybe ttruscott doesn't follow yours.

In any case, good call.
I stand corrected.

From what I can see no Witness has thus far participated in this thread,

Well, I take JW a branch of Christianity.
So, instead of "JW", I will use "Christian" when I comment on ttruscott.

As I keep telling people... "Don't look so shocked. I DO I DO make mistakes"

I can even remember a time back in 1979, when I made two.

you are discussing with ttruscott who, as far as I know, isn't one of Jehovah's Witness and does not share our beliefs in this point, and debating a theology we JWs don't hold. So again, why these headings?

"Discussion" is a bit of an exaggeration, though, as I think he has chosen to ignore all of my posts for a long long time now. Lets say that I comment on his posts, and then ask questions that if he did NOT ignore, I'd like the answers to.

Bit of a one way discussion, if you ask me.

I hope I cleared up this JW reference of mine.
One of the most common mistakes I keep making in here is getting people mixed up, and that, to hilarious effect some times. I didn't want to offend JW.


BUT, since I DO have a JW on board,

____________

Question:

• 
  
  Do JW believe that the itty bitty cutsie wootsie babies are born guilty?
  
  

____________

[JehovahsWitness]

One of the most common mistakes I keep making in here is getting people mixed up, and that, to hilarious effect some times. I didn't want to offend JW.

No problem, happens to the best of us.

Question:

• 
  
  Do JW believe that the itty bitty cutsie wootsie babies are born guilty?
  
  

No, babies have broken no law so cannot be considered personaly guilty of anything. That said, all babies are born "imperfect" meaning born in an imperfect condition and therefore suseptible to sickness, disease even (sadly) death. This imperfection means we all have a natural inclination not to behave perfectly. This imperfection (imperfection= sin) in inherited we believe, from of Adam (Romans 12:5) .

No baby is at fault for this sad eventuality.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 54 by JehovahsWitness]




[center]Inheriting sin[/center]

No, babies have broken no law so cannot be considered personaly guilty of anything.

Ok.
So much for "original sin", right?

That said, all babies are born "imperfect" meaning born in an imperfect condition and therefore suseptible to sickness, disease even (sadly) death. This imperfection means we all have a natural inclination not to behave perfectly.

Well, yeah, I don't know how many people would claim that humans are PERFECT, right? If we aren't born perfect, and can never attain perfection, who's to blame for that?

What does SIN mean then?

I thought it meant some kind of transgression against some kind of god?
Can we "inherit" what other people DO?

This imperfection (imperfection= sin) in inherited we believe, from of Adam (Romans 12:5) .

Ok, that metaphor "inherited".

When I think of something being inherited concerning who I am, I think of DNA or genetics.

I have no idea what it would mean, though, to "inherit" someone else's sin.
If my granpa robbed a bank, I'm not guilty of it UNLESS I helped him.

If he passed away long before I was born, don't blame ME for his "imperfections".


I would say to God : "HEY, you up there. Go punish Adam all you want, just leave me out of it. I didn't eat from no magic tree."


[center]And of course, it DOESN'T mean that just because dear old gramps robbed some banks, that I ever will.[/center]

No baby is at fault for this sad eventuality.

Not at fault = Not guilty, your honor

How can someone be guilty of sin if they are not?

[ttruscott]

What sin exactly is a newborn guilty of committing?

imo
To be precise, newborns do no sinful acts but they arrive here as sinful spirits and are conceived into human bodies. Any judgement or punishment they get for sin is for sin they brought with them into their bodies, though it is clear in the story of Jacob and Esau that they were trying to murder each other in the womb over who would be first born - quite a load of knowledge and implication as to how a foetus could know about such things.

This depends upon the doctrine that we are all born sinners but rejecting the doctrine that GOD created us sinners in Adam by making us inherit his sin, leaving few alternatives but that we existed and sinned before we were conceived.

[JehovahsWitness]

What does SIN mean then?

Sin means not reaching the standard of perfection. Literally the word means "missing the mark"; imagine a archer taking aim at a tarket but every time, he misses the bullseye and hits just wide of it. Being "sinful" or born in "sin" means no matter how hard we try, we will never "hit the center of the target" we will always fall short of perfection. This is the condition in which all humans are born; it is an inherited condition.

Ok, that metaphor "inherited". When I think of something being inherited concerning who I am, I think of DNA or genetics. I have no idea what it would mean, though, to "inherit" [strike]someone else's sin[/strike] [a condition]

I have corrected your post, to try and make it clearer

Hope that helps,

JW

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 56 by ttruscott]



[center]
Babies aren't guilty of DOING anything bad, but of just BEING bad[/center]

What sin exactly is a newborn guilty of committing?

To be precise, newborns do no sinful acts but they arrive here as sinful spirits and are conceived into human bodies.

So, babies don't DO anything wrong, they just get to BE wrong.

Lucky, lucky babies !!!

Any judgement or punishment they get for sin is for sin they brought with them into their bodies,

All babies DECIDE to take "sin" along for the ride?

Bad, baby, BAD !! Put that sin DOWN like I told you


( so, after all, the itsy bitsy babies DID do something bad )

[ttruscott]

One of the most common mistakes I keep making in here is getting people mixed up, and that, to hilarious effect some times. I didn't want to offend JW.

No problem, happens to the best of us.

Question:

• 
  
  Do JW believe that the itty bitty cutsie wootsie babies are born guilty?
  
  

No, babies have broken no law so cannot be considered personaly guilty of anything. That said, all babies are born "imperfect" meaning born in an imperfect condition and therefore suseptible to sickness, disease even (sadly) death. This imperfection means we all have a natural inclination not to behave perfectly. This imperfection (imperfection= sin) in inherited we believe, from of Adam (Romans 12:5) .

No baby is at fault for this sad eventuality.

IF an infant has broken no law then by what means is he in an imperfect condition and therefore susceptible to sickness, disease and death, if not that he was created imperfect by GOD? Does that which is perfect create that which is imperfect? Can salt, stagnant water flow from the same well of fresh life giving water? Can light in whom is no darkness at all then produce darkness? 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. I have heard so much sophistry in answers to these questions that I hope I am pleasantly surprised finally.

This imperfection (imperfection= sin) in inherited we believe, from of Adam (Romans 12:5)

This brings up more questions for me: Why create HIS creation, HIS Bride, in the state of sin and evil that HE hates? If you could create perfection would you create that which is anathema to you that you hate? It makes no sense...

I mean, we have a perfect GOD who does no evil and then we have HIS creation being created degenerate, corrupt and evil enough to need help to avoid hell?? And evil that Jesus say enslaves us, corrupting our will so we have a natural inclination not to behave perfectly, that is, to be evil.

My answer to all of this is as you know, to suggest that pre-earth existence in which we as innocent spirits created perfectly with a free will chose to be evil in HIS sight by going against HIM and earth is just where HE is working our choices out for us.

I am also sure that if one were to study Romans 12:5 as if it were wrongly interpreted because only a sin chosen by a free will can make a person guilty and evil, that if it is studied from this pov, then it won't take long for an answer to be found as to where our sin came from. The orthodox interpretation for this verse is a great blasphemy against GOD's nature as loving (is it loving to create someone evil?), righteous (is it righteous to make someone evil without their consent?), and holiness (to be holy means to be perfectly dedicated to GOD so how can sin arise for holiness?) rather than paying lip service to orthodoxy, a flight of the imagination into a study of what this verse really means must be made if for no other reason than to believe no other reason can exist for our sin.