Why is sin heritable?

Except the part where hurting yourself hurts other unnecessarily. Or where you hurt someone negligently. But that wouldn't have had that Heinleinian punch, I suppose.

I'm not entirely sure I can tell what Paul really thought here. He may well imagine them as forces of nature in and of themselves, I've heard that interpretation before. But yeah - the New and the Old make for a difficult marriage. Paul did well trying to find a way to explain why the Christ had an ignominious end though,which is what he was really driving at all along. I read Paul as saying that the sin had to be 'paid off', through death. Sacrifices count - but one way or another ultimately the debt needs to be settled.Did Abel sin? If he died, I presume Paul thinks so. Or maybe you are right, that maybe Abel sinless was and was killable because of Cain's sin and that murder was available all along - it was just hadn't occurred to Adam pre-fruit eating. Sounds like a feasible justification for his mercy. He seemed to personalise the curses depending on what their sin was. Incitement to disobedience against Yahweh, following the serpent over Yahweh, following the woman over Yahweh.

I'm saying we are discussing sin, a biblical content, and whether god is morally culpable after he created mankind and a talking snake made them eat magic fruit resulting in them being cursed...and whether or not sin is inherited.So - given that we have accepted that prior miracles have occurred so as to explore a moral discussion, we have accepted they are possible. Since they are possible they are not logically impossible.If miracles are logically impossible, Yahweh did nothing, and is thus morally responsible for nothing. Pick a position. The thing you are trusting and what you are trusting it to do is kind of important too. And if a 'jumper' trust Yahweh will give him eternal life, then the story says he might get it (as long as there are no suicide clauses to the deal). By all means add it to the list. I missed out labour pains and being hated and mistrusted by all mankind too. I figured you'd get what I was saying. Do you think those things are so bad, it's not worth living?Because unless your answer is 'those things are worse than being alive' I think we have concluded the punishment was more lenient that immediate execution. It isn't. Yahweh doesn't do 'justifying himself'. IT was just an explanation as to why he did what he did. I have no idea. But I was talking about Adam - who seems to understand Yahweh well enough in the text. No - if you fail to adequately protect yourself through self-discipline, faith or whatever - sin will be on your case.Jesus seemed to be suggesting that prevention is better than cure, since trying to simply resist lust is more difficult that not becoming lustful. Those verses suggest God is able to judge the actions of men, not predict them. But it doesn't matter since I am arguing about the Yahweh Paul was talking about in Romans. The Psalms are almost fair game I suppose - but they are also poetry, so care might be appropriate. I agree with that, but your quote was about punishing offspring for the sins of the father. Not for people inheriting the sin itself. Those children will have their own sins to wrestle with. He is penalising the children for their wrong doing. Yahweh implements a strict dictatorship with harsh penalties as deterrents against sinning as a method for helping mankind. But they still sin.Even with someone basically pointing a gun at them and their family, man still chooses disobedience.

We agree that death came to all men courtesy of Adam. What you haven't established is Adam did not understand that he would die after Yahweh told him he would.You have tried to imagine the situation, no doubt, and concluded that a person who has never seen death must be incapable of understanding it enough for it to be a sufficient deterrent.So you need to demonstrate that your imagination must necessarily be true. And then explain why the author left out that significantly important detail (ie., you must demonstrate that what comes to your imagination was likely to in agreement with what the author imagined (and thus decided it wasn't worth mentioning)). I wasn't asking you to point them out. You asserted Yahweh should have known something, and your interpretation has him not knowing it. Either this is an error in the story or your interpretation. Therein lies the work, to separate the two.Why would Yahweh explain something to someone who couldn't understand him? Is it because the author thought Yahweh was an idiot. Or did the author believe Adam did understand it?I'm fairly sure the author(s) of Genesis thought Yahweh was a pretty smart guy. So why would they have him effectively explaining quantum mechanics to a lamp post? What narrative purpose does including this trivial and pointless scene serve? Sure. Adam knew that Yahweh created him. And that Yahweh created Eve. Adam knew that he had not existed forever. Adam knew that Yahweh, having the power give life to clay, had the power to remove it and turn it back to clay. And no more Adam chilling out with his girl.Adam wasn't stupid.Now - provide empirical support for your empirical claim that a person never exposed to death, but who is capable of understanding language is incapable of understanding the the threat behind "Put your hands above your head or I will kill you." It's not a swell choice, for sure. As long as one wants to live, one is obligated to eat. Mankind can. It just doesn't. It seems there are things out of Yahweh's hands. I can't speak for whatever God God is. But it is there as the reason why people do bad things, and why we die. I'm not here to say it is an empirically sound theory. Only if you assume you are right first.If we assume the Bible authors world is true, then it necessarily follows that mankind chooses to sin, and it is not an inescapable destiny. There are so many wonderful sins to choose from that we'll find one we want to do. Not because of our biology, or our brain or our instincts. Completely freely of our own volition.And that's A & E's fault for giving mankind the knowledge in the first place. Again - I'm talking about Paul's account. If you want my opinion on Matthew's understanding of the inheritance of sin we can move on to that if you'd like. I'm not a Christian and I feel no obligation to make the bible some kind of self-agreeing document. Matthew came after Paul. Matthew seemed to be all about the Jews, unlike Paul. I know Matthew plunders the jewish text, and maybe even does a disservice to it, so maybe we can look and see?However, you mention that sparrows die only at the command of Yahweh. That's fine, but what about us? Aren't we of more value than sparrows? Oh thank You for that! When people say God, they often mean the god they think of when they think of god.To avoid that confusion, I refer to Yahweh, a useful name to refer to a specific entity (or group thereof at least). I don't always do it, but I thought you were describing the characteristics of a different god in question so I pointed it out. And I'm saying that isn't in the text so far under discussion. It just seemed to Yahweh that once the flood gates are opened, we end up sinning - no matter what he does to stop this. We're drowning in sin thanks to Adam - Yahweh has tried to get us to swim out of the water, but we won't do what he says. So he uses the Christ loophole.IF you want to refer to some other passage by Paul or in Genesis which supports the notion that humans do not have any real choice, I'd be keen to discuss that.For all we know, some people lived without succumbing to sin but were killed by an accident or some other sinner. But that is definitely not the pattern then authors are addressing. It was claimed that in Romans, Paul suggests that we inherit sin. I thought that was an inaccurate portrayal of Paul's position. I have argued that Paul was not suggesting we inherit sin.A lot of other issues have been raised, possibly as a means of proving 'me' wrong, or rather showing that Paul is not consistent with other authors. I have addressed them if I don't think there is an inconsistency, and conceded that other authors disagree with Paul and with Genesis. No you are quite right - I was referring to the instincts you were referring to, I later said it more precisely as 'moral instincts' to be clear. Sorry about that.
As for the rest, I don't know - I think the Bible might be silent on the issue. That is a non sequitur. An eternal life form that cannot create cannot be held responsible for the creations of a temporal life form.Yahweh is responsible for his actions, but he is accountable to nobody so you're fucked unless you trust that he's got your back. Indeed - a latin pun on 'mal' and 'malus' (meaning evil and apple respectively) if memory serves. Murder, rape, theft. I'm sure I don't really need to explicitly list all the sundry ways you can make someone's day considerably worse. I have no idea to what rules you are referring to. The rule that the wages of sin need to paid through death seem to be out of Yahweh's hands. They are a simply asserted as if it were logically necessary. But I might be wrong, maybe somewhere someone says "As Yahweh decreed: the wages of sin..." or something.He doesn't have to follow his commandments, since they are terms and conditions upon which promised to give nice things to the Israelites as a form of formal Treaty (technically a Suzerainty Covenant) and he apparently kept his promise.So 'rules' is a bit vague I'm afraid. In a nutshell. And if true it would mean Adam could understand the concept before being exposed to it by experience. The Law is absolute, but Yahweh is not obligated to punish transgressors. He can be merciful and let them off, or give them probation. Yes, that is all one needs. And one also needs to know how to abstain from reading something into the text that isn't there but they thought was.And I end again: The hypothesis in Genesis for how we can have free will and moral responsibility is not supported by the evidence. The idea that Paul was saying that sin was inherited is not true.

I agree with what you are pointing out - but it is not related to what I said. I am saying that something that has occurred is evidence that it is logically possible. If it were not logically possible it cannot occur.It doesn't matter who does it or if it does it spontaneously. If it happened - it was possible.If you want to hold Yahweh liable you need to accept that miracles are possible. If they are not possible, then Yahweh did not create humans out of clay and so is not responsible for their crimes.Do you agree? Because trusting Yahweh powers the necessary miracle in giving you eternal life free from sin.Why does it power the miracle? God knows, it's not in the text and I'm not a theo-cognitive researcher or meta-physicist. Indeed, he got pissed off and had a tantrum. He would do it again a little while later.But if he had kept his words, neither you or me would be here. So what's worse - having to work for a living and having agonising sometimes lethal child birth. Or not existing at all? If you can support the notion that a person in that position would not understand I'm all ears. Jesus is warning against sin. He says being angry at your brother is putting you 'in danger' that you should cut off offending body parts. That by lusting you have committed adultery in your heart (and should presumably cut it out). He doesn't say it is punishable under the Law. Quite the opposite. Paul's Yahweh wanted to spread the word to Gentiles. Matthew's wanted it to be all about the Jews. I'm fairly certain there are disagreements between them. One might more diplomatically suggest that they are different -sometimes contradictory-conceptions of the same being. No, it says the children will be punished for the sins of the father. Not that they inherit his sins. Yahweh feels it is unfair to punish us just for sin, which has its own consequences. In order to punish the people mentioned in the quote, Yahweh would need to have a Law. For without Law there are no transgressions. So he created a Law, and punished those that broke it. The Law is a list of sinful things and their punishment and he had the Israelites sign up to it by signing their foreskin on the rusty blade.

They clearly don't trust you'll follow through with your threat. Set one of them on fire, see if you get better results from the remaining ones. That's Yahweh's old method.

I'm not asking you to accept miracles as real.I'm saying if you want to suggest that Obi-Wan Kenobi was responsible for Anakin's fall into the dark side you tacitly assume that the force is a given.If we start from a realist position then we just say 'Obi Wan wasn't real so is not responsible QED'but that's not an interesting discussion is it? And I agreed that miracles are a deviation from the norm. I disagreed that Yahweh could do the 'logically impossible', by definition. That's not logic, its a general empirically derived rule that is subject to falsification. ie., when someone does. In which case we change the derived rule to 'most dead people don't come back to life, unless a rare miracle occurs'. As long as you are comfortable explaining what it is. If you ascribe something to someone that is out of character, maybe you got it wrong?I'm not asking you to morally support your hypothetical father's actions.I'm asking if you'd rather you and all your loved ones had never been
born that for them to have been born, suffered under a curse, and eventually die? Is there a reason you didn't answer and instead asked me about your hypothetical father and accused me of hypothetical moral crimes? Mine was a serious question that addresses the point you originally raised regarding leniency. Nope. You were not using words from the English language. Do you have evidence that Yahweh was using words that were not in the Hebrew language (Which it is implied inadvertently or otherwise, Adam understood)? Right - but Yahweh didn't say "Adam, make some distinction between good and evil."
he said "Obey this command or you will die."The word was muwth. Assuming this was the language spoken, what is your evidence that Adam couldn't understand it, and why would the author have Yahweh talking to a lamp post? That's right. And Adam didn't know that. He just knew the command to be obedient. He didn't know why. He knew the consequences for disobedience. Indeed. And Paul highlights the choice: We can be lead by the sprirt so that we no longer tempted by the sins he listed. Paul was referring to aselgeia which isn't an exact translation for lascivious. But the lewdness and the wanton aspects seem to capture it. Try all of the above.This is different than Matthew who used epithymeō which is desire (in the case of Matthew the desire to be adulterous, but could possibly apply to licentiousness as well).But good find! You are conflating issues.The children are punished, but they are not held responsible.I appreciate this seems abhorent, but there you are. I've referenced possible justifications for group punishment and cross-generational punishment - but Yahweh doesn't say. We just have to trust him that his reasons are ultimately just.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

So you agree that in the context of the story miracles are possible, but it is is important to the story that they are not possible?Perhaps you mean to say 'possible ONLY through some divine act which is not the common fashion in which these things generally occur'? Which is different from 'impossible', no? I am arguing that the logically impossible is (logically) impossible. And something which is impossible has no possibility whatsoever of occurring.Not 'no possibility according to physicists'. Just straight up not possible. And since you agree they occurred - for the sake of having this argument in the first place - you have proven yourself wrong.Miracles don't occur without Yahweh.
Without Yahweh, they would be impossible.
With Yahweh they are possible.Since we are accepting Yahweh as a given in order to analyse his actions...we are assuming that miracles are not in fact, impossible, according to world we are criticising Fine. I'm talking about Yahweh who doesn't seem to be literally impossibly powerful in the story since he makes mistakes, and can't take them back. Not at all. Trust powers aren't miracles. We are all capable of trusting Yahweh. That's the point. That's a lot easier that resisting all of sin.I have no idea why they thought that this kind of faith 'could move mountains', or how that functions. So I'm not special pleading. The whole point of the stories is about man's relationship with Yahweh. Yahweh has faith in man (who let's him down) and man must have faith in Yahweh (that he won't). It's a central theme of many of the books - don't have a go at me if they don't explain the mechanics.It's not special pleading to not know how magic powers of the witches in Macbeth works. And if you point at a prophecy someone gave you that you didn't self-fulfil out of some character flaw the prophet exploited...and ask me why it didn't happen. I don't know. I don't know how self-fulfilling prophecy magic works. Shakespeare doesn't tell us. What do you want me to do, make up some bullshit? Lie? Dedicate my life to uncovering a system I think is actually fictional just to satisfy your desires?Midichlorians: Sometimes explaining a mystery makes it suck. And I have never suggested it implies that, have you tried not reading things into a text for a change? Just reading what's actually there? To be explicit - I do not believe that accepting 'hard labour for all your offspring' is less harsh than 'dead/offspring are never born' implies that either you think raping somebody is OK or that you think the curse was justifiable.So given you ACTUALLY prefer having been born. That means that of the two following options:1. Yahweh allows Adam to die (on that very day) and moves onto some new project (Yahweh doesn't specify that he will execute Adam, just that Adam will die the day he eats the fruit). You are never born. Your family is never born.2. Yahweh does not kill Adam. Sticks with the project. You are born, but you have to work for a living and your mother went through pain.Since you prefer the latter, and Yahweh promised the former. Do you not agree that I have demonstrated that Yahweh's actual punishment is a better state of affairs for all of us than the stated consequences?Drop the rape nonsense. You must be getting me confused with someone else. Yep. He could have done lots of things. He threatened one thing. And did another, lesser thing. I'm not suggesting you like the lesser thing or whether you think it was best possible thing, I'm suggesting you prefer it to the thing he said he was going to happen. Which you seem to agree with.It's not a dichotomy of mine, just a dilemma of your own creation. We have the threat of consequences, and the consequences that actually occurred. We are comparing them to see which is worse: 5:12 we agree on. Adam brought death into the world. "The authors were dumbasses" is a pathetically stupid argument of a dumbass and requires no further rebuttal beyond: How can you make any claim about the morality of Yahweh if we assume his documenters are so dense? What else did they miss out? What else did they simply get wrong? Maybe Yahweh never cursed us at all. Except, as I explained, he isn't. He will punish the result of desire: Wanton lewdness and adultery. The implication is that you can't resist desire forever, if you let it build up you'll give in. So follow the spirit and you'll be free of that problem. We aren't fated to trust him. The point is, it comes down to taking his word for it. There is no evidence upon which to base a judgement. So either we fill in the blanks in a kangaroo court fashion and find him guilty, or we trust that's trying to save us from sin. Absolutely you can. But since you don't have all the facts at your disposal you can't judge the case against Yahweh. I'm not sure how you are going to build a fair case. On the other hand, whether you think action x was just or not, if you trust he'll keep his end of any covenant - he will.Your choice, essentially. Yup. I'm not closed to that, just explaining what the text says about him and the system as it seems to me is described, not as you are imagining it based on reading stuff into the text and starting working with the assumption that authors didn't even understand their own intentions.Call me crazy if you like. Why don't you find actual Biblical scholars - the people that spend their life researching these texts, trying to uncover the types of people behind them and so on. See if you can find any that conclude 'The authors were dumbasses.'. Or maybe you can claim you know better than any so called 'scholar'. In which case, I will await your 'conspiracy of the intellectual elite' theories which tend to follow on from this line of thinking.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Gotcha. Now we're under advisement so I'll simply repeat my claim, using my definition of logically impossible - not yours.Yahweh didn't give mankind a choice in having a choice (which would be logically impossible ie., simply could not happen since it self-contradictory), but he did give them a choice in obeying him. As I have said: you are arguing against dogma, I'm arguing about what Paul actually says. I have no interest in the former right now, since we agree already. I've cleared things up I hope on this front: It isn't just trust. It's trusting that Yahweh will keep his promises that is of import. According to Paul.On the importance of trust from the horses mouth; And in Romans 5, Jesus' trust is important for helping relieve us of sin that has been around all this time: Now - I'll concede some points. Paul *does* think that the repeated sinning is because we've become so attached to following our body's desires. Though he does mention that some people lived without being sinful, but still died because of Adam's actions. Paul also says in Romans 6, As Matthew has Jesus observing: If you feel lust, you are still the slave of sin. Good. Then we can agree the curse was leniency compared with the mandatory sentence. Any further discussion on the leniency of the curse and how awful it was to do can be held elsewhere. Agreed - so let's stop attacking the authors intelligence shall we? It is fiction - any resemblance to real life is merely coincidental as they say.In which case - the answer to question "Why is sin heritable?" is "Sin is a fictional concept and thus cannot be inherited." Probably. And I would expect to see even more if they were able to edit it (which the evidence indicates they did).Do you have any evidence that this is one such plot hole - or are you just asserting it must be so in order for your interpretation to be right so that you condemn Yahweh? So far you have merely asserted and repeated it. Maybe it deserves a whole thread of it's own do you think? Or you could find secular scholars and see what they say, being as they have no axe to grind and are subject to peer review by other academics. You know, 'biblical scholars'. James Pritchard, Yehezkel Kaufmann, Julius Wellhausen, Nahum Sarna
immediately spring to mind, but even one that isn't a famous scholar would do, a few papers or books, a professorship under the belt maybe.Or you know, you could consult the works of Martin Luther and try and claim that his view of jewish thought is anything worth spending any time considering.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Exactly.So - can you explain, within the context of the story, why Yahweh thought it was a good idea to threaten somebody who couldn't comprehend the threat?Or are you claiming that it is an empircal fact that a person in the position Adam was in could not understand the concept of death? In which case I await your empirical support. I am not sure how that is the opposite. My position is that the more authors have edited and added to it, the less consistent we expect the work to be. Your position is that a single author increases consistently. Since we agree there was not a single author - we agree there will be inconsistencies. And there are, so that's fine.But the so-called 'Yahweh doesn't know that Adam can't understand him (or does and is stupid)' is not a plot hole I have ever heard before so I'm not taking your word that it is true. I have you interpretations, but not your support - sorry. You've just told me that Adam brought sin and death in the world and therefore he didn't understand the concept of death prior to this.It's the therefore I'm asking you to go through with me. How did you get there?