Inherited sin

[nobspeople]

Rather or not it's correct to be taught, inherited sin (my term, describing how humanity all have sin based on the failure of Adam and Eve) is taught in various sects' churches in christianity.

For discussion:
For those that believe in inherited sin, how is this justified?
How does this make sense?
How is this fair?
Or is nothing 'fair' in light of the almighty's righteousness and glory?

[nobspeople]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #35]

If you think that is a gift, from whom did man receive this gift?

Time

Do you think time could have given this gift to mankind if there were never consequences to one's actions (for oneself or for one's loved ones)? No cause and effect?

Now, that is an assumption. We have no idea how long Adam and Eve had before they ate from that tree.

Fair enough, though you'll notice I ended with a . But there's still absolutely no biblical proof (see zero) that they understood.

Other than the mention of it to begin with (which usually begins with the premise that such a concept is at least grasped). Also, other than the absence of anyone in the bible ever stating the assumption that some are making here (that Adam and Eve were set up to fail, that they had no idea what death even was, and they had no idea that it would be bad to eat from that tree).

Only assumptions. Until they saw someone die, they had no idea what death really was.

That is also an assumption isn't it? My five year old son had never seen anyone die (or known anyone who died), but when he and his cousins broke the bunk bed, and I ran upstairs hearing the crash, my son was wrapped around and hanging on to the upright beam of the bunk bed for dear life, and as soon as he saw me, he said "We're gonna DIE!!!!" I felt bad, thinking I might have overemphasized the danger of running into the street or leaving my side in a parking lot (or a car could hit you and you could die), but he certainly knew that death was something bad, something to be avoided.

I digress.

Even if Adam and Eve did not have FULL knowledge of death, they still knew that dying was something 'not good', unfavorable, bad. Something God warned them against. Same as I would know from your example, that a compression surge is unfavorable, bad... just by the fact that someone (in particular a father who loves me and who has given me everything) has warned me against an action that would cause it.

God had given them NO REASON not to trust Him or remain faithful and loyal to him.

And maybe A&E said this to god? But there's ZERO biblical evidence of this happening OR of god explaining it.
None
Nada

And the reasonable conclusion would be that it was already known, or at least grasped enough to know that it was 'not good'. That it was something to be avoided. Note, that the serpent did not attempt to say to Eve that death was no big deal. He (falsely) reassured Eve that death would not happen. That implies that Eve knew death was something to be avoided, something not good, something bad.

They didn't know based on biblical story.

Except you claimed that I had made a logical assumption. If the biblical story stated that they did not know, then any assumption from me that they DID know would not be logical or reasonable.

If you claim from the biblical story that they did not know, then please provide evidence from the biblical story. Something that is not an unreasonable or illogical assumption, perhaps not even an assumption at all.


Peace again to you.

You made an assumption outside the story. It's that simple. No place in the story that it show they understood what death was.
No where.
We can make all sorts of assumptions within the story - doesn't make them true or not. It only adds to the personal acceptance and justification.
The end point is this:
the story shows nothing about A&E understanding what the punishment would be, ignoring the fact that a being such as god had to punish them for putting the temptation there in the first place.

That's a set up.

Now, let's get back to the subject of the thread, as this has divulged past that.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. I'm reluctant to get into discussion of the ins and outs of what is plainly mythological (and better I leave you two alone to do it) but the whole scenario only makes sense as a put up job by God to make sure that man sinned.

[nobspeople]

Yes. I'm reluctant to get into discussion of the ins and outs of what is plainly mythological (and better I leave you two alone to do it) but the whole scenario only makes sense as a put up job by God to make sure that man sinned.

If one thinks about it, inherited sin makes sense from a human standpoint: you want EVERYONE to be a sinner with NO possibility that there is a family branch that's not sinners out there - somewhere - in the world.

But we're dealing with THE supreme being. Is this really what one would expect from that supreme being that, merely words earlier, looks to be the creator of ALL THINGS?!? I mean, really? Something akin to a poor law enforcement prostitution sting?
Come on!
It's laughable in a sad, sad way. It's not even camp!
If this is the best your god can do, I suggest you come up with another one.

[David Davidovich]

"The mark" is being flawless. ie NOT doing anything that is "undesirable, unkind, unhealthy". That it is God that decides what that "mark" is and gives "not being perfect" (ie not being able to be flawless - which is the mark ) a name is irrelevant. If you can grasp what I have just said, and then read the definition again, you will see we are both speaking about the same thing only you omit the factor of who or what decides what is "undesirable, unkind, unhealthy"

Well, yes, to you it is, however, not everyone shares your same beliefs. For example, I like to read and understand things, however, I feel as if I fall short when trying to wrap my brain around some of Albert Einstein's theories dealing with space-time and time dilation, etc. However, I don't believe that I am sinning or that I fall short of Bible God's perfection because of it. Also, I like to eat and sometimes I eat too much and eat the wrong things, however, I don't feel as if it's because I have sinned against Bible God. Therefore, everyone doesn't have the same religious beliefs that you have, and what you are explaining is based upon belief, which has absolutely no empirical evidence to back it up.

[JehovahsWitness]

... I don't believe that I am sinning or that I fall short of Bible God's perfection because of it.

No offense but I am really not interested in discussing your feelings or beliefs; thanks for sharing but neither are debatable.

What I was highlighting is that the biblical lexicon parallels with common perception of what it means to be "imperfect". However one calls it, we are talking about the inability to avoid all that is harmful, ...."undesirable, unkind, [and] unhealthy".

If I call an apple "an Eve Fruit" and you call it "a granny smith" it makes no difference if you dont believe in Eve and I dont believe in granny Smith we are both referring to the same thing

Both atheist and believer recognise that nobody's perfect. We call it "sinful" you call it "flawed" but the two are in essence interchangable, since they are both describing "the human condition". He that does not believe in sin still has to believe in the human condition. Wasn't it Shakespeare said .... "Pick a name, any name"?


JW

[Tcg]

... I don't believe that I am sinning or that I fall short of Bible God's perfection because of it.

No offense but I am really not interested in discussing your feelings or beliefs; thanks for sharing but neither are debatable.

And yet elsewhere you stated this:

FIRSTLY PLEASE NOTE I make no claims here, I am simply expressing what I believe based on the bible. Please take all sentences to be preceeded by the premise "I believe ..."

What an odd double standard.

Both atheist and believer recognise that nobody's perfect. We call it "sinful" you call it "flawed" but the two are in essence interchangable, since they are both describing "the human condition". He that does not believe in sin still has to believe in the human condition. Wasn't it Shakespeare said .... "Pick a name, any name"?

No. "Sinful" is based on the idea that one has disobeyed or disobeys some divine code passed down from a god of some sort. No atheist would consider it a valid concept for obvious reasons.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

... I don't believe that I am sinning or that I fall short of Bible God's perfection because of it.

No offense but I am really not interested in discussing your feelings or beliefs; thanks for sharing but neither are debatable.

And yet elsewhere you stated this:

FIRSTLY PLEASE NOTE I make no claims here, I am simply expressing what I believe based on the bible. Please take all sentences to be preceeded by the premise "I believe ..."

What an odd double standard.

It's not a double standard at all, I didnt say he couldn't state his beliefs, like me he can share whatever feelings and beliefs he likes. Like me, however he cannot oblige others to debate his beliefs; neither his beliefs for mine are "debatable" and if anyone doesnt want to what we believe, they are free to ignore them.




JW

[nobspeople]

... I don't believe that I am sinning or that I fall short of Bible God's perfection because of it.

No offense but I am really not interested in discussing your feelings or beliefs; thanks for sharing but neither are debatable.

And yet elsewhere you stated this:

FIRSTLY PLEASE NOTE I make no claims here, I am simply expressing what I believe based on the bible. Please take all sentences to be preceeded by the premise "I believe ..."

What an odd double standard.

Both atheist and believer recognise that nobody's perfect. We call it "sinful" you call it "flawed" but the two are in essence interchangable, since they are both describing "the human condition". He that does not believe in sin still has to believe in the human condition. Wasn't it Shakespeare said .... "Pick a name, any name"?

No. "Sinful" is based on the idea that one has disobeyed or disobeys some divine code passed down from a god of some sort. No atheist would consider it a valid concept for obvious reasons.


Tcg

Christianity itself is a double standard: god says don't kill, but it killed thousands - maybe even millions. It's a 'do as I say not as I do', type of thing.
So it's no surprise we should see believers taking part in their own double standard: anyone can make a claim on a debate sight, but no one can debate... said claim... After all, the entire bible is a conglomeration of claims from individuals.
Sometimes, people get confused with their own double talk in an attempt to save face. Again, it shouldn't come as a surprise from those that partake in said belief system, considering all the double talk that has taken place in the bible.

But this is all off topic of inherited sin. Unless one can show proof (not a claim) that sin is inherited and show proof (not a claim) at how this makes sense as coming from a being that created everything (including sin) and is capable of anything (being creator of everything) yet, succumbs to human standard of 'well, let's make it easy and just make everyone inherit sin from their forbearers' type of talk.

[JehovahsWitness]

No. "Sinful" is based on the idea that one has disobeyed or disobeys some divine code passed down from a god of some sort.

It doesnt matter what its based on, my point "sinful" (as opposed to sin) refers to the human condition. Unless a person doesn't believe there is a human condition we come to the same point of singularity. We just give it different names.

[Tcg]

No. "Sinful" is based on the idea that one has disobeyed or disobeys some divine code passed down from a god of some sort.

It doesnt matter what its based on, my point "sinful" (as opposer to sin) refers to the human condition. Unless a person doesn't believe there is a human condition we come to the same point of singularity. We just give it different names.

No, it doesn't. Sinful is based on the concept of a divine lawgiver. Of course, there is a "human condition" but it has nothing to do with the concept of "sin."


Tcg