Why is sin heritable?

The topic is about why is sin heritable.

It is not about the consequences of sin.

Phage0070 writes: 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. (Message 83)

In Message 4, the originator clarified that punishment was not the point of the thread.

Larni writes: Sorry if I gave you the impression that I was getting on the punishment pony. I'm more interested in the title, i.e. I'm interested in whether sin is heritable and why Yahweh chose to make it that way.

Please stick to the topic.

Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.

Thank you
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Added quotes and comment.

Modulous writes: 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?

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?

Modulous writes: 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.

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.

Modulous writes: 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.

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.

Modulous writes: 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.

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.

Modulous writes: 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?

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.

Modulous writes: He threatened one thing. And did another, lesser thing.

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.

Modulous writes: "The authors were dumbasses" is a pathetically stupid argument of a dumbass...

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.

Modulous writes: 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.

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.

Modulous writes: The point is, it comes down to taking his word for it. There is no evidence upon which to base a judgement.

I will agree on that point. Faith is believing when there is no evidence upon which to base a judgment.

Modulous writes: But since you don't have all the facts at your disposal you can't judge the case against Yahweh.

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.

Modulous writes: 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.'

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.

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Superman is super precisely because he can do the impossible. Thats the sense I am talking about

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.

Everyone has their own unique concept of gods, but I think you have departed rather significantly from mainstream Christian doctrine.

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.

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.

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;

Romans 4:19-21 writes: Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead-since he was about a hundred years old-and that Sarah's womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.

Romans 4 continues to writes: The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness-for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

And in Romans 5, Jesus' trust is important for helping relieve us of sin that has been around all this time:

Rom 5:19 writes: For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

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,

Romans 6:20-22 writes: When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.

As Matthew has Jesus observing: If you feel lust, you are still the slave of sin.

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.

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.

Lets keep the ad hominem attacks to a minimum shall we?

Agreed - so let's stop attacking the authors intelligence shall we?

Or maybe the entire thing is a fiction?

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."

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.

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?

Why don't you find actual Biblical scholars ... See if you can find any that conclude 'The authors were dumbasses.' Why would I look to their supporters? I need only look to their opponents to find those conclusions

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.

Modulous writes: In which case - the answer to question "Why is sin heritable?" is "Sin is a fictional concept and thus cannot be inherited."

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.

Modulous writes: Probably. And I would expect to see even more if they were able to edit it (which the evidence indicates they did).

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.

Modulous writes: 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?

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.

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.

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.

Probably. And I would expect to see even more if they were able to edit it (which the evidence indicates they did). 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 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 already presented my interpretation and the scriptural citations to back it up.

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?

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

Hi PD,

purpledawn writes: But it isn't part of the story. He still had the potential to sin.

What was the potential to sin?

Had he committed a sin, if so what?

If he had committed no sin he was not under the penalty of sin.

purpledawn writes: They would still have the ability to make decisions. The Tree of Knowlege of Good and Evil (TKGE) just wouldn't have been a choice put before them.

But eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the only choice given that would result in death.

Mankind still faces the same choice today. Mankind can believe God and trust Him to give them eternal life or the result is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire.

Sure you can choose to do good or bad or both but that will not give you eternal life with God or eternal separation from God.

purpledawn writes: Only if one chooses wickedness, IOW to sin.

If you have scripture for that I would like to see it.

The only place I can find sin and eternal life in the same verse is:

Luke writes: Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

What you get for sin is death.

What you can get from God is the gift of eternal life.

purpledawn writes: Sin is not inherited. The ability to choose sin is in all of us, although in reality I feel there are cases where people really don't have a choice. An anomaly in their genetic or physical makeup. Some of those anomalies can be inherited.

We agree sin is not inherited.

We agree that man has the ability to choose to sin or not to sin.

We agree that there are those who do not have the ability to choose to sin.

I add those who have not reached the point that the man was when he ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil fit in that group.

Children fit in that group even though they sin they are not accountable as they are covered by God's grace until they reach the ability to know good and evil.

There is also a group that their minds never reach this point due to physical and or mental problems.

God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Phage,

Phage0070 writes: 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.

Why would Jesus have to make the same decision Adam did?

After 40 days without food Satan tempted Jesus by saying " If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread."

Jesus answered:

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Satan then took him up on a pinnacle of the temple and said:

Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Jesus answered:

Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Then Satan played the trump card.

Mat 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; Mat 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Jesus answer was:

Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Jesus came to redeem the universe and everything in it to himself.

Satan offered a shortcut by offering to turn it all over to him if He would fall down and worship him.

So Adam only had one choice, Jesus had three.

Jesus refused every attempt of Satan.

That proves sin is not inheritable as Jesus did have a physical body.

Phage0070 writes: Except for those who don't know about it, or commit the sin of not asking for it.

There are none of those who read these pages.

God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Adam did not know that it was wrong to eat the fruit. Remember, the whole point of that tree was to give them understanding of what good (righteousness) and evil (sin) was. Adam did not know it was wrong, God intentionally placed an enticing tree in the middle of the garden, and instilled in to Adam his natural desires and curiosities. Sounds like the only one at fault would be Yahweh, no? That God is allegedly omnipotent and omnipresent makes God complicit in everything, especially the first sin. Yahweh completely facilitated their sin. In a court of law, we'd call that "entrapment."

Maybe God intended for Adam to sin. He wanted people to understand good and evil, and the best way to do that, perhaps, is to let people experience both punishment and reward. Just like a baby has no understanding of why we keep him from putting his hand on that glowing red thing on the stove. Once he does it one time, however, it makes a lot more sense the next time we tell him "No."

Think of God as a programmer. He makes a beta-version of the world and puts Adam and Eve in it. This allows him to work out any bugs in the systm in a controllable environment. He an program a lot of factual knowledge into Adam's head, transfer it into Eve, and even let them have some limited experiential knowledge. His intention is to then let them into thefull release version of the world, one with consequences for actions. It seems almost poetic to me to have the experience of movng from thebeta version to the full release version be te very experience that will help them understand consequences, good and evil, etc.

We agree that sin is not heritable. It is a shame that Paul's writings mislead people into thinking that it is.

I think Paul's logic is flawed. He says that because the first man sinned, all men sinned. Since sin is the cause of death, all men must die.

Just as sin is not inherited it is not the cause of natural death either.

Before God decided to keep them away from the Tree of Life he said to the man.

Genesis 3:19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

Natural death is not a consequence of Adam's sin. They were already capable of dying naturally.

Paul was a good salesman, but some of his preaching doesn't really hold water.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motion—for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in “The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion”

Hi PD,

purpledawn writes: I think Paul's logic is flawed. He says that because the first man sinned, all men sinned. Since sin is the cause of death, all men must die.

Paul did not say what you said he did.

Paul did say:

Luke writes: Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

"by one man sin entered into the world"

That does not say because the first man sinned all men sinned.

" death by sin;" and so death passed upon all men"

He did say death entered the universe by sin. No death prior to sin.

"so death passed upon all men"

He said because of that sin all mankind would die.

purpledawn writes: Before God decided to keep them away from the Tree of Life he said to the man. Genesis 3:19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

Yes but that was after the man had already disobeyed God and brought sin into the universe.

The sin that caused death to enter the universe.

Here is the text to refresh your memory.

Moses writes: 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

purpledawn writes: Natural death is not a consequence of Adam's sin. They were already capable of dying naturally.

Your assertion is not supported by the text.

Man was not capable of dying until he ate the fruit.

That disobedience cause sin to enter the universe.

The result of sin is death.

Now if you want to discard the text you can say anything you want.

purpledawn writes: Just as sin is not inherited it is not the cause of natural death either.

Sin is not inherited. Sin exists.

Sin is not the cause of natural death.

But because the first man did disobey God sin entered into the universe. The penalty for that disobedience was death.

Death entered into the universe. Therefore death exists.

These laws are in place just as all the other laws put in place to control the universe.

God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

purpledawn writes: We agree that sin is not heritable. It is a shame that Paul's writings mislead people into thinking that it is. I think Paul's logic is flawed. He says that because the first man sinned, all men sinned. Since sin is the cause of death, all men must die. Just as sin is not inherited it is not the cause of natural death either.

Paul was not the only bible writer to tell us that sin is inheritable....Paul was not misleading anyone. He was a student and teacher of the Mosaic law...he didnt come up with his own theology.

Psalm 51:5 "Look! With error I was brought forth with birth pains,
And in sin my mother conceived me"

Job 14:4 "Who can produce someone clean out of someone unclean?
There is not one."

Larni writes: Why did Yahweh make sin heritable?

It may be that he didn't make it so but that it was inevitably so - a function of the natural created order of things. Consider the following elements/hints - after which I'll pose what I think might be the case.

We would agree that the 'Trinity' is a mysterious notion, the idea of three persons mingled into one God. Whatever about it's incomprehensibility, it appears there exists an intimacy/intermingling between the persons of the Godhead that far exceeds even the closest of intimacies experienced by us.

As Jaywill so frequently and eloquently points out, it appears to be Gods intent that those who 'go to heaven' will in fact join in and share in that most intimate of unions. We are told that saved men are elevated to the status of children of God which, considering that Christ is the Son of God, indicates our partaking in this most intimate of unions. Other intimate pictures abound in the Bible: Christians described as part of the same body, Christians (collectively) the bride of Christ - with marriage decribed as a place where two become one.

Lastly, we are also told that this eternal 'future' situation is the result of restorative action on God's part - that man's fall was in some ways, a falling away from a lofty, intimate height.

Your question is set in the context of the post-Fall world. In that context, men exist as discrete personhoods, separated from their neighbour physically, emotionally, spiritually. Intimacy between men is an awkward, frequently superficial (even within the context of marriage) affair. The soul of man has trouble looking the soul of another man straight in the eyes. Indeed, it often has trouble looking into it's own eyes - as your work in psychology doubtlessly informs you. The word "hereditary" perfectly underlines our tendency to see ourselves as separated-from-others individuals - we envisage an inherited trait or disease as something which has leapt the dividing boundary between individuals. That we be separated individuals appears to us to be the natural state when in fact it is an unnatural one - one that merely reflects the Fallen environment in which we live.

The pre-Fall situation was otherwise. Mankind was modelled on the godly order: an intimate, singular entity albeit an entity made up of personhoods ("let us make man in our image and likeness"). So when sin-disease infected that singular entity through one of it's constituent parts (Adam), the densest of networks of interconnectivity between it and all other constituent parts (the rest of us) ensured easy passage for Sin to all corners.

The only way to prevent such a spread would have been not to create man in God's own image and likeness but to create him in something like his post-Fall state: separate, individual, discrete and separated from other men. Which would defeat the purpose of making man in God's own image and likeness. Man in God's own image and likeness can become part of the Godhead what with being of like-order. Man unlike God cannot mingle with God any more than oil with water can mingle.

-

If one accepts that Adam deserved punishment and Yahweh did indeed punish him why did Yahweh also decide to punish other people (Adam descendants) so setting in motion the events that required Yahweh kill his own son.

Does the above help? Adam was part of the body mankind. In infecting himself, he infected all parts. The fact we can inherit from another might be seen as a vestige of the uber-connectedness that existed in our pre-Fall state. And a precursor to the connectedness that shall again exist in the eternal state.

-

I would contend that Yahweh's 'go to' method for getting things done is suffering even to the point of making himself suffer, but that can't be right, can it?

Suffering is a fantastic way to tell us that something is wrong. It tends to get our attention and without it we'd be dead in no time.

Don't diss suffering!

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Just out of the door but I would like to address this point quickly.

It may be that he didn't make it so but that it was inevitably so - a function of the natural created order of things.

But that must mean he is unable to break the natural order: true or false.

By "natural order" I mean amongst other things, logic. The natural order deriving as it does from God's nature precludes God breaking it. He can't act illogically for example (it is suggested)

What you'll hopefully see from the post above is that;

a) God can create a vessel with a compartmentalised hull sealed off by watertight doors. The advantage of such a design is that a hole pierced in one compartment (Adam sinning) won't result in water engulfing the whole vessel (Sin (capital S) enters all of mankind ). The disadvantage (from God's perspectivr) is the resulting restriction on movement around the hull (ie: lack of imtimacy/interconnectedness between men and between men and God)

b) God can create a vessel with an open plan hull design. The disadvantage here is that a hole in any part of the vessel results in the whole vessel sinking. But the advantage is unrestrained interconnectedness between all points of the hull (ie: fullness of intimacy/union).

What God can't do (logically) is have the advantages of both hull designs at once - since the characteristics of one design are the polar opposite of the other.

Sin inherited by all due to the sin of one is a natural feature of the b) class of hull design. That is the design that God chose in creating mankind.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.