Importance of Original Sin

So your question, which you invited me over here to consider, is how our inheritance of Adam's sin could be just and moral?I suspect nothing anyone says about this will ever convince you, but the way I would put it is that it's a nature we inherited simply because we're made of the same stuff our parents Adam and Eve were made of. Basic principle of inheritance we all know about.Sin changed them, like it broke something in their DNA, and all their offspring get that broken DNA. Basic law of inheritance you see.I suppose God could have started all over creating a new Adam, but the thing is, any Adam would be vulnerable to committing sin and eventually would give in to it. It's only by being born in sin and then saved by grace that we are guaranteed a new nature that cannot sin again. Something to do with the nature of things.

If that's what Jesus meant, that ALL of us are to give it all away, the entire Church would have known it and preached it from the beginning. It was addressed to that particular man Jesus was talking to, and to anyone else who feels the Holy Spirit calling him to that life, it is NOT for all of us.

Again, if that was to be a rule for all believers it would have been preached to all of us all these centuries and practiced by all and it wasn't. That's because you are pointing to particular specific events in the history of the Church that were not meant to be rules or commands, and imposing a false interpretation on them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You keep missing the point. Works are essential confirmations of faith but they HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SAVING US.

Yes works validate faith, nobody has denied that; if there are no good works there is no genuine faith.But just as you miss the point of the communal sharing among the believers and the story of the young man Jesus advised to sell all he owned and give it to the poor, you now as usual completely miss the point of the story of Ananias and Sapphira. I think I must have explained it at least half a dozen times by now. But here goes another: as the apostles explain, they were not at fault for holding back part of the sale money, since they had it within their power to decide to give whatever portion they wanted to give; their sin was lying about it to create the impression they were giving it all when they weren't. Lying to the Holy Spirit yet, as if He didn't know the truth no matter what they said.This is well understood and taught by all the preachers and theologians I've ever read on the subject, as is also the case with the other examples mentioned. As I said, if the Bible teaches that we are all to give away everything, that would have been taught and practiced down the centuries, but it has not. You misread these things. The testimony of the Church's leaders for two millennia is against you on all these examples.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Here's a typical commentary on this: So here greed is considered to be part of his sin, but there is no implication even in that fact that he was obligated to give all the money. He was free to choose to give whatever portion he wished. Greed he was guilty of, but not failing to give all since that was not required.But I'll simply repeat for the umjpteenth time: All these passages you interpret as requiring all believers to give up everything we own have never ever ever been understood that way by the teachers of the Church, and they certainly would have been if that's what they meant. Yes we know that you as an unbeliever who rejected your own Christian upbringing, think you know better than the millions who have been faithful to it for two millennia, but your credibility is just a teensy bit lacking.

It's not even a principle, but if their crime deserved instantaneous death why quibble: that makes it a requirement, not a principle anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I am not justifying greed for pete's sake: we should always give generously, and yes often faith is involved. I'm arguing with your claim that any of this is REQUIRED, or even that there is a principle involved beyond being generous. Go back and read through this discussion.; You aren't talking about the obvious fact that greed is a sin, you are claiming there is a definite requirement involved. Soi now you seem to be changing your argument. But nobody has been arguing that greed isn't a sin.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Quite true, jaywill, as I have also been saying. But of course the unbelievers know better than the believers about everything biblical.

Two thousand years of biblical interpretation by the best of the best trump the self-serving stuff of the unbelievers.

The "believers" you are talking about include millions that go back two millennia. We ought to know. You know nothing. You're the self-serving ones.

NObody has fudged the words about Ananias and Sapphira except you guys so you can drop that one. It clearly says he had the control of his possessions and was not required to give it all. It would have been right to give it all but he was not required to give it all and that is not why they were punished, It CLEARLY says they were punished for LYING about it.

There is no doubt that God killed them, but if they were believers in spite of their sin it doesn't necessarily mean damnation. It may but it may not.Their sin of LYING TO GOD. That's just plain nonsense about 99%.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, you read wrong.

You are exaggerating what I was wrong about, and in the end I don't think I was anyway.