Why is sin heritable?

The real reason: Because it is the only way the whole system works. You cannot blame someone for not following a rule they don't know about, so the reasonable method to save people is to never tell them about God. This prevents them from ever being punished.No religion would be created with this setup, and any religion that morphed into such a form would almost immediately vanish. Ironically religions obey the same selection pressures as organisms; evolution functions to make religions that cannot effectively reproduce extinct.

False. God brought sin into the world by creating beings capable of going against his will. Violating his will is the definition of sin, so the introduction of free will is inherently tied to sin.You can argue if this was a good idea, but sin being God's fault is beyond discussion.

If the act of eating the fruit gives Adam the ability to distinguish good and evil, and effectively free will, then how can God ethically hold Adam responsible for eating the fruit? Genesis is quite clear that the sin that earned him all the punishment and expulsion from the garden was eating the fruit, not what came after.Furthermore, how can he be held responsible for his sin after gaining free will, if the free will was not gained through his free will? (convoluted I know) By having free will it is literally impossible for him to follow God's law since God punishes for thought crimes; even considering sinful action is worthy of eternal torment (Commandments 6 and 9 for example). Since Adam didn't possess the wherewithal to determine if he wanted free will or not (lacking free will), can he really be held morally responsible for the inherent infractions involved?

If that being was perfect, then how come he ended up eating the fruit? If Jesus was also perfect, this implies that even Jesus would have ended up eating the fruit.Either Adam was flawed, or God is punishing for something that wasn't a mistake.

Held partially liable for something he didn't have the free will to avoid? He didn't have the capacity to make moral decisions without free will!God: "Adam, if you break this tree I am going to kill you."
Adam: "You got it God!"
(Wind blows, and the tree breaks.)
Adam: "Huh."
God: "You sonofabitch! I said I was going to punish you, so not only are you going to die but you and all your children's souls are going to die forever in eternal torment!"
God: "But I LOVE you." Oh, so God cannot do things that are logically impossible now? I will adjust my view of miracles accordingly... (Don't worry, I give you a 50% chance of flip-flopping on this point) You are still missing the point, it is more than that. God can give people free will without letting them choose if they want it or not and be perfectly ethical; just don't punish them solely for having it. If they didn't have a choice in the matter they shouldn't be held responsible for the direct consequences.God could have simply said "Make good decisions with your free will," and it would have been fine. Once they have free will they can consider the bad choices and the good choices, and make their moral decision. God punishing *considering* the bad path is simply immoral, yet that is what he claims to do with things like adultery!If someone doesn't know about an immoral choice compared to the moral action, they can hardly be considered moral for taking the moral action. If they know about the immoral path and it isn't desirable at all their moral choice is similarly lacking in worth. If they desire to make the immoral choice but restrain themselves their moral choice takes on real meaning; yet God punishes based simply on it being desirable.The Christian concept of God lacks basic ethical sense. Ahh, but they were not created with it, they gained it from eating the fruit! They were also punished for that act; if they were created with the free will they would be being punished for being created. Too true; after all Jesus leaves one out. I was referring to desire of another person's wife or property, and adultery. Right; they are responsible for their choices *after* they gain free will. But you just said that they gained free will and God punished them for that same act (eating the fruit). Can I assume you are going to go and read more between the lines now? (other 50% is here!) I'm not arguing that at in the slightest; after all, if man has no free will that says nothing about the environment he is in. The events leading up man gaining free will are simply not affected by the free will of man (duh).Before man gets free will he makes no choices for which he can be held morally responsible. The choice to get free will (eating the fruit) wasn't a choice made with free will (you already agreed that such a thing is logically impossible and that God not only didn't, but couldn't allow it), yet God punishes that man for that action.That punishment is simply and clearly immoral.

How would he have had free will if up to that point he was completely subject to the will of another being? Miracles are events that contradict the established functioning of the universe. If the laws of the universe are occasionally mutable then the miracle is no great occurrence; the assumption must be that miracles are conventionally impossible. Oh really? He said that Adam would surely die. He then turned around to not only fate Adam to die, but to labor in working the earth and to eat dirt for the remainder of his life. Furthermore, he also fated all of Adam's offspring to the same fate.Thats more than he threatened. How easily you ignore what Matthew says in favor of Paul; why not ignore Paul in favor of Matthew? Or them both in favor of neither? You would be better served to address the reader's concept of Yahweh, as Paul's concept varies by the reader. Free will cannot be exercised in a void of understanding. Someone with free will but lacking any method to sense reality cannot be blamed for any immoral action committed in reality. Similarly, someone with free will yet no concept of immorality cannot be blamed for immoral actions. Too late; even having them makes you guilty according to Matthew. Isn't he supposed to be omniscient? Yeah, they do look like dumbasses. I would agree in the intent, but it isn't what is written. The entire story is designed to make people guilty and inherently in need of the religion, but its presentation is morally flawed. That is the point I am getting at.If someone writes a story and they have a plot hole, you don't try to interpret the story so it makes sense. You say there is a plot hole due to an error in writing. Only religion seems to get the special treatment of infallible writers.

So? Are you implying that its logical possibility or impossibility varies depending on expectations?When someone has poor logical skills I consider them to be wrong, not that the logical possibility of things is altered. People jump off buildings to their death on a nearly daily basis believing that they can fly. If you think it is a miraculous level of trust I can only describe you as deluded. You conveniently forget the punishments for all their offspring as well I notice. Also, around the United States we consider forced labor and torture as cruel and unusual punishments. He does seem to have anger issues. How exactly is being "pissed off" a justification for cursing people again? I don't need to expand from inconsistency. Death entered into the garden with Adam's act. (Romans 5:12) Knowledge of good and evil became Adam's with Adam's act. How can someone who lacks knowledge of death or the distinction between good and evil have "access to all the information (he) needs"? So by the time you actually have any moral decision to make, God is already on your case. Thats my point exactly. God knows everything in the past: Revelation 20:12
God knows everything in the future: Acts 15:18
God knows everything in the present: Psalm 33:13-15I guess he is just covering all his bases huh? I was just explaining that if we take what the Bible says at face value, it contradicts itself.

We have covered your rather unusual views on the Genesis account before, I see no need to get into it again. My point is that if Adam was perfect, and Jesus was perfect, then if Jesus was in the same situation that Adam was he would behave the same way.So by what right does God punish Adam for doing what Jesus would have done too? That is no excuse. If I was the child resulting from a rape it does not mean that I have to condone rapes as ethical, and I am rather horrified that you would advocate such a moral maneuver. Except for those who don't know about it, or commit the sin of not asking for it.

You seem to be equating logical possibility with God doing or not doing something. I am simply pointing out that we have not established those as necessarily equivalent. Why? Its still the same level of trust; if anything, the jumper has more. No, what I was getting at is that God punished a lot more people than he promised in the first place. He specifically said Adam would die. He may or may not have included Eve also. But he certainly didn't include you or me in that deal, and yet theologically here we are. He understands God because the author was writing a fiction. Resisting lust being difficult is irrelevant; *having* lust is punishable according to the text. Its not the same one? As well as the sins of the father. Thats what the quote says, literally in those words.

No.Darth Vader is responsible for killing Obi-Wan Kenobi and cutting of his son Luke Skywalker's hand. However, I don't have to believe that Darth Vader ever existed or that the Force is real. If we are to strictly conform our ideas of what is logical to what occurs in reality, something occurring would of course cause it to become logical. However my point is that miracles are inherently a deviation from the natural behavior/order of reality, so I would tend not to adjust my idea of logic to include such special deviations. Therefore it would be logical to say that dead people don't come back to life, but that a miracle might achieve just that. As long as you are willing to acknowledge your special pleading I am comfortable with that claim. I just covered this with ICANT. If I was the child resulting from a rape pregnancy, I don't have to morally support the concept of rape or that specific instance. Frankly that you would such a moral maneuver disgusts me deeply.That a particular immoral action results in benefit to me, even including my creation, does not make that action moral. Don't sprodoof, instead frooyle or I will grombulate you. Do you understand?Of course you don't. You don't understand the distinction between sprodoof and and frooyle, in the same sense that Adam didn't understand the distinction between good and evil. You also have no experience what grombulation entails so the threat is impossible to assess.In Christianity good and evil are tied firmly to obedience and disobedience to God respectively. Since Adam does not gain knowledge of good and evil until eating the fruit, he was unable to distinguish between obedience and disobedience to God before that point. lascivious [luh-siv-ee-uhs]
—adjective
1. inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd I don't care about if they have the metaphysical sins or not, I am concerned with the punishment. The OP also specifically points out the issue is with later generations being held responsible for the sin, not about some metaphysical concept of sin being passed on.

Then if you are asking in the context of the story if miracles can happen, I would agree that they can. I have already explained that I think their importance is tied up in the concept of them being impossible though. I am familiar with the claim that gods cannot do logically impossible things, but I think it hinges on concepts that have not been established. It requires that God would necessarily need to work within the framework of his own creation, or that our ability to understand its actions places limits on God's power. I don't think such things fit with the concept of an omnipotent god. That you consider some trust powers miracles and some does not, but that you have no explanation for exactly how or why it would occur or not occur. Obviously I would prefer that I be born. This does not imply advocation of either rape or God's actions against Adam. I also don't accept the false dichotomy you are trying to establish; God could have cursed Adam for a period until he could reproduce and then killed him, but not extended that curse or inevitable death to his offspring. Or he could have simply made new humans from scratch. Yes. Not that he wasn't using words present in that language, but rather that Adam didn't understand them.This evidence would be the text specifically pointing out the time in which Adam gains knowledge of the concepts these words represent, and that time being after both the instruction and the violation of said instruction. Romans 5:12 and because the authors were dumbasses, respectively. We have covered this. The talk of a later remedy is simply avoiding the point that God is willing to punish for simply experiencing a desire. No. No, we don't.This is the root of the issue. If your god appears to be unjust you don't have to trust that he is actually better than he appears. You can simply conclude that the god described is unjust. If the god actually exists you should be open to the possibility that it is truly an evil god.

If God subjected us to death it would make no sense that he provides us a means to be free of death as well.Or maybe Peg needs to (wince) read his/her bible more.

Superman is super precisely because he can do the impossible.Thats the sense I am talking about. I don't really see the focus of this though, since I don't see any reason why impossibility would limit the scope of miracles. Was there somewhere else you were going with this? In the context of magic performed by an unpredictable, omnipotent hiding being I don't think that you have established justification for such a statement. The "Trinity" dogma would be an example. Ok? Everyone has their own unique concept of gods, but I think you have departed rather significantly from mainstream Christian doctrine. Thats fine of course, but it changes my position somewhat. If you choose to define your god as being unable to do the impossible due to limited powers that is your prerogative. I was referring to the level of trust. You seem to say now that anyone can trust Yahweh enough for miracles to occur, rather than that such levels of trust are miraculous. My point was simply that obscenely high levels of trust are observed on a nearly daily basis unrelated to religion. Yes, it is better for us. It does not justify the actions, it does not make it less immoral, it does not mean I would support such actions.Thats what the "rape nonsense" is getting at. The child benefits from it, is better off from the crime. But it is nonetheless a crime and the child need not condone it simply because they benefited.Besides, I already showed two ways Yahweh could have easily improved on the situation. The immediate death of one being is NOT greater than the torture and eventual death of that being plus the torture and eventual death of all those offspring as well.One death verses the death of 100 billion people, and you have the gall to say the latter is lesser. Lets keep the ad hominem attacks to a minimum shall we? I wasn't aware that you were so emotionally invested in the perfection of the authors of an ancient text. Or maybe the entire thing is a fiction? These questions are only of burning importance if we assume that they are reporters rather than story writers. I find it quite reasonable that a fictional account stemming from an oral tradition to which the authors are unwilling or unable to make significant change, could be rife with contradictions and plot holes. Pair this with Bronze-age tribesmen with a moral sense stunted by modern standards and I can see exactly why the story would paint their god as immoral. I will agree on that point. Faith is believing when there is no evidence upon which to base a judgment. This is completely wrong. I make decisions every day based on incomplete information. Even important decisions with which I take great care are done with incomplete information. Every decision any man has ever made was done with incomplete information...And yet we still make decision. So no, I can judge the case against Yahweh without knowing *all* the facts. Why would I look to their supporters? I need only look to their opponents to find those conclusions; other religions can be particularly viscous in their criticism. Being foolish is probably the mildest criticism leveled, it goes right up to demoniacally possessed and intentionally malevolent. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Even viewing it from the standpoint of one who thinks it is a fiction, I think that answer is a cop out. An explanation (or denial) in the context of the story is required. Actually I would expect the opposite. A single author generally is able to make a more coherent and cohesive narrative than many people passing down an oral tradition, potentially with added embellishments. I have already presented my interpretation and the scriptural citations to back it up. I understand that you have a different interpretation, as many other people likely interpret it differently than us both. A thread devoted to Biblical interpretations could fill a lifetime, and it is a subject I am completely uninterested in unless someone can present objective proof their interpretation is superior.

I'm not going to continue replying as none of this is within the context of the topic at this point.