The Fall, Man and Sin

[American Samurai]

Anyone could take whatever they want and try to justify it, but without at least some knowledge of hermeneutics, it doesn't work.

[American Samurai]

How is sin inherited yet not inherited? There is a breakdown in logic here.

There's no breakdown in logic, the verses posted were taken completely out of context.

[texan]

Anyone could take whatever they want and try to justify it, but without at least some knowledge of hermeneutics, it doesn't work.

Another argument from authority; see my edit above.

You aren't actually providing any evidence whatsoever to argue against my point.

Sin is an action, it must be undertaken by the individual before such transgression can occur.

[texan]

There's no breakdown in logic, the verses posted were taken completely out of context.

Assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. Where is your evidence?

[American Samurai]

Assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. Where is your evidence?

Ravi Zacharias says that trying to argue with someone who doesn't love truth just gives him more material to misinterpret. But hey, nothing personal against you, because I used to be the exact same way.

[MotoriousRacing]

perhaps I should clarify what to me is the only rationally causal chain which can exist within biblical teachings given the scripture I've read.

1) God creates for you a soul
2) God is good and so are all his creations, therefore your soul starts out good and uncorrupted
3) Your flesh and blood nature, however, leads to temptation
4) Given enough time and free will to choose, sinful action is inevitable
5) Your free will to engage in this action leads to your and only your damnation (for if another's action could damn your soul you would be robbed of the will behind that action)
6) Atonement for these sins has been built into our world through the sacrifice of Christ since the time of his death
7) That atonement by extension excuses the very nature of the flesh and blood you if you accept Jesus Christ as your savior

If your soul was instead corrupt and damned at the time of your beginning, God has done this and would not be the one of the Bible. Further, sin is action, undertaking such action is what damns the otherwise good and clear soul. However simple action is not enough to constitute sin, one must understand the actions they take as being sinful yet undertake them anyway. Therefore both action and moral agency are required for something to be considered a sin, yet the latter doesn't exist in you at the time of your birth or anywhere near it.

Thus children aren't born damned, your soul will not be damned for the actions of another and your soul is always yours to redeem.

I mostly agree with this, but I am confused because I thought we've argued on occasion, mostly about creation. Are we somewhat in agreement on spiritual issues?

[MotoriousRacing]

I'm not saying man is without sin. I clearly stated this in post #6 by referring to the sinful nature of the flesh (see points 3 and 4). What I am questioning, apparently to little avail, is how the innately sinful nature of man gets extrapolated to shared guilt of the father for actions not your own when a direct scriptural quote very clearly states this isn't so.

How is sin inherited yet not inherited? There is a breakdown in logic here.



Edit: Arguments from authority will henceforth be ignored. In fact I should probably take a day off from this thread to let the 'experts' here come to an agreement before they tell me what I can and can't possibly know.

I think you're dealing with fundamentalists that literally believe a serpent once had legs, and were removed by God in anger, given the serpent's role in the fall of man and original sin. They see no other interpretations than strictly what is written, ironic since Jesus taught in parables.

[texan]

Ravi Zacharias says that trying to argue with someone who doesn't love truth just gives him more material to misinterpret. But hey, nothing personal against you, because I used to be the exact same way.

What the hell, man? You're down to labeling and derision because you haven't formed a salient argument to offer me, though I ask for nothing more? If you're not willing to openly, rationally discuss your faith perhaps this isn't the best thread to participate in.

Here's to hoping other lovers of truth remember their lessons on humility and the dangers of self-righteousness. There is no need to be this divisive when I ask only for your honesty and a modicum of mutual respect.

[American Samurai]

texan, then if you do love truth, don't take that personal, not talking about you.

Also, I'm really not here to argue with people or try to prove that I am right and they are wrong. Unfortunately though, when you have believers and unbelievers together in a discussion forum, people tend to get butthurt.

[Lineman101]

I think you're dealing with fundamentalists that literally believe a serpent once had legs, and were removed by God in anger, given the serpent's role in the fall of man and original sin. They see no other interpretations than strictly what is written, ironic since Jesus taught in parables.

I would only say that ad hominem attacks don't equate to having a discussion...But since you threw this silly idea out there, I don't hold to this idea of satan. The serpent allusion in various areas of the Bible.

It is used to describe satan - Genesis, Revelation
It is to describe the religious leaders of Israel - Matthew 23:33
It is used to describe literal snakes - Various bible references

It is used to show us what satan is like, not what he looks like...
So please deal with the subject, if you can...

[Just Dave]

If a newborn refuses milk feeding him steak isn't going to do any good.

Here's a parable.
The word of God is like math, if a person will not learn the basics they can not learn algebra.

Here are some links to help those who have questions.

This is good just for honing your basic reading and comprehension skills

http://www.christianbook.com/basic-bible-interpretation-roy-zuck/9780781438773/pd/61819?product_redirect=1&Ntt=61819&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP

Theologically sound explanations.

http://www.christianbook.com/bible-knowledge-commentary-new-testament-volumes/9780896938007/pd/693800X?product_redirect=1&Ntt=693800X&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP

Get all 4 volumes

http://www.christianbook.com/systematic-theology-volume-2-god-creation/norman-geisler/9780764225529/pd/25529?dv=c&en=google-pla&event=SHOP&kw=academic-20-40&p=1179710&gclid=Cj0KEQjw_IKiBRD7rPqut_OZ4qgBEiQASm4GAoUg3Lkxowi9fPF1PNpGex7Xo4l2Dksrz5EmtgBnrAoaAk9O8P8HAQ

Here's a real easy read

http://www.christianbook.com/theology-popular-systematic-understanding-biblical-truth/charles-ryrie/9780802427342/pd/42734?product_redirect=1&Ntt=42734&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP

I've study these books intently over the years, they are a great help.

Here's some free stuff.
BLB has a good dictionary.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/

I haven't been to this one in years but still good.

http://www.preceptaustin.org/

[Darto]

For those believing in the innocence of youth, please read Lord of the Flies. And then think about what you have read. It is for very good reason the bible nowhere teaches an age of accountability. Nobody needs salvation more than the child.

They are not innocent, yet they are naive, hence Jesus saying of such is the Kingdom of God. Trusting like a child is a good thing. The selfishness of a child is NOT a good thing, it is sin. In any religion.

[Just Dave]

For those believing in the innocence of youth, please read Lord of the Flies. And then think about what you have read. It is for very good reason the bible nowhere teaches an age of accountability. Nobody needs salvation more than the child.

They are not innocent, yet they are naive, hence Jesus saying of such is the Kingdom of God. Trusting like a child is a good thing. The selfishness of a child is NOT a good thing, it is sin. In any religion.

Exodus 13:14 gives some insight on the age of accountability

[texan]

For those believing in the innocence of youth, please read Lord of the Flies. And then think about what you have read. It is for very good reason the bible nowhere teaches an age of accountability. Nobody needs salvation more than the child.

They are not innocent, yet they are naive, hence Jesus saying of such is the Kingdom of God. Trusting like a child is a good thing. The selfishness of a child is NOT a good thing, it is sin. In any religion.

You are using a work of dystopian fiction to discuss biblical doctrine?

What is your stance on the requirement of moral agency?

[hasserl]

I mostly agree with this, but I am confused because I thought we've argued on occasion, mostly about creation. Are we somewhat in agreement on spiritual issues?

OK, here's the deal, he doesn't believe what he posted. Texan is not a Christian, he isn't of any belief, he is an atheist. I'm not sure what his game is here, he may just be trying to cause arguments among Christians. At best this is an atheists take on what Christians SHOULD believe according to his interpretation of their holy book. He doesn't actually hold to any of it himself, this is just folly for him.