Importance of Original Sin

Instructive. In suggesting one shouldn't build too much on sandy foundations I wasn't supposing a context anything than bible study building.Yet you read something into the my text. You've done the same here.. ..I'm not assuming anything. I'm pointing out that you are.

Because he understood plain English (or whatever language was spoken then)?I don't mean that he understood death in the detailed sense we're able to appreciate it by. Rather (we must assume) he understood dying as being something negative/unpleasant/to be avoided. It wouldn't have been hard for God to go about educating him in this.If we don't assume he a working knowledge of this concept then we can't assume he had a working knowledge of any of the other concepts which are represented by words such as: On,this,day,you,will,surely, etc. - in which case debate is pretty much pointless.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Indeed. But the question is whether he disobeyed in order obtain what were perceived by him to be positive consequences or whether he disobeyed in order to die with her.There is good, direct evidence to support the former notion, and absolutely no direct evidence to support the latter.

Then the question has changed.I was dealing with an earlier suggestion by you that the REASON he ate was that he knew she would die because she had eaten and he was chosing to die with her. "Flesh of my flesh" was offered by you in evidence. Now you say the reason isn't relevant. Somewhere along the line you've switched topic.I've no problem agreeing that he disobeyed a command. It's rather obvious that he disobeyed. I mean, God said what to do + Adam didn't do what God aid = Adam disobeying God.

It is an interesting question. Having a reasonable grip of Dutch as a foreign language I'd suspect all languages are like it: richer in some areas than one's own language.So I imagine Adams, pre God-scattered language was pretty...expressive.- "Death" in Christianity is a twofold thing - physical and spiritual. Everyone is born spiritually dead and dies physically at some point too. I'm sure you've heard this before.Adam died spiritually that day (and would have, I'm sure, sufferedas a result as we all do - although he would have had something to compare the new situation to) and physically later on. In being dead spiritually/alive physically he would be in the same position as you or me. In need of God's salvation.Whether he and Eve availed of that salvation I have no idea.- I could say the same for the means whereby you suppose yourself to have come into existance. Molecular kettle calling the molecular pot frankly outlandish.- Like I say, I've no idea.If God dropped two big stones on Adams big toes such that it caused him to yell in pain (but not cause permanent damage) and then said that death was 10000 (or whatever) times more painful than that then Adam would have an idea of death as a negative thing without God lying to him.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Death (spiritual) is painful for all men. It has to be painful in the same way that a circle has to be round. To be dead spiritually is to be wrenched from proper connection with the divine life and health -giver > which leaves screaming, torn spiritual nerve endingsPost-fall Adam was a man like us. The pain of his spiritual death serves as a spur that might turn him back in the direction of his creator. It serves the same purpose in all born of him: you and me.- Are you clear that the Christian view is that the 'death' delivered at the point of their disobedience was immediate spiritual death followed by physical death at some point (we know they didn't die physically straight away and can assume they are not alive and well and strolling around Milton Keynes today)?If you are clear, then it should be easy to see that post-Fall, they came to live just as you or I were born to live > as spiritually dead / physically alive beings with the potential to be saved.In which case, the potential for salvation was as open to Adam and Eve as it is to you and me.- I don't see that they had any reason to believe one over the other either. For if they did then it would be God or the serpent who made their choice for them - by providing the most convincing story. Which would mean that God or the serpent would get the credit for them choosing - not them themselves.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

It occurs to me that Christian apologetics is an area where there is a need for original sin (apologetics being considered an aspect of the great commission).Whilst there are any number of battlegrounds of objection between the non-Christian and the Christian some are more substantial and hard fought over than others.How many miles of posts are written over God committing genocide or condoning rape or swooning on a tree instead of dying on a cross? Original sin is one of those hotbeds. And for good reason! It is a countered so furiously because it provides a mechanism whereby the responsibility for mans own sin is laid at the door of man himself.One good way to avoid your responsibilites is to deny that you have them.Earlier you were suggesting (iirc) that a simple "it is in mans nature to sin" might suffice - but that doesn't counter the immediate defence of "well if it is my nature and God created me with this nature then it's God's fault that I sin".

I'm paraphrasing and condensing on the assumption that Straggler isn't familiar with the variety of the Christian Cult of Ignorance I happen to be peddling.

Paul seems to think it is .. and he's in slightly better position to comment (I'm inclined to believe)

Let's look. Take responsibility for a nature God decided to give them?This wouldn't even pass a grand jury, never mind result in a conviction.

If it's about why original sin is important to Christianity (which is about where I picked the thread up) then it is about whose to blame.That all stand guilty before God is central to Christianity and OS assists in establishing that.- If it isn't an actual event then it explains nothing. The bible might as well say "man is guilty before God, the bible says it, that settles it" because in doing so you've explained about as little.- I don't see that - he nestles this element into a mechanistic explanation. This isn't about your non-Christian take on Paul, it's about the Christian take - which is mechanistic, like I say.- Lay the onus for a mans sin on himself by some other means then. In broad lines..(Whether or not you agree that is what Paul is doing isn't the issue - Christianity holds that position and utilises OS to do it)- I'm looking at Paul..
- Off topic? The topic is whether it's important to Christianity - not your view on Jesus' mission in so far as it relates to Judaism.- Per above.- Per above. Jesus appears to have 'needed' the great commission. The great commission 'needs' the gospel. Man guilty before God is part of the gospel (the bad news requiring the good). Ergo..Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'm not familiar enough with the central messages of early Catholicism to know. The main Christian denominations stand behind the notion of mans guilt before God and point to the Fall as a foundational element in that being so.- The requirement on scripture to provide satisfactory explanation lasts somewhat longer than it takes kids to outgrow Santa.I did ask purpledawn for an alternative explanatory framework for the Christian notion of man-to-blame but none was forthcoming.- Indeed(although quite how a sinful heart would come to repentance might not be so simple) Whilst I can't see how Eve could have had a malicious motivating impulse (since she had no knowledge of evil - from whence malicious motivating impulses)), that knowledge is available to the rest of us.I'd agree Paul comes to a climactic point with Romans 7 man and that this man is one who realizes himself 'held captive' by evil. Not all men come to this realization though and the means whereby men continue in their sin appears to involve willful suppression of truth.From whence the charge of being indeed 'in cahoots' with sin. I'm not sure I see the advantage of his being consistent with early tradition. Unless one is supposing early tradition necessarily better on target.Nor am I sure what you mean by 'sin an end' since sin is generally seen as but a fulcrum about which salvation is or isn't brought about (in a person). Which is arguably near an end than sin. From the above comment, resurrection isn't seen as for all. At least not resurrection unto eternal life. The phrase..

quote:

---

Fortunately, you're saying so doesn't actually make it so.

---

..springs to mind.- Man guilty/at fault through connection with Adam.

quote:

---

An interpretation of Augustine of Hippo's notion of original sin was strongly affirmed by the Protestant Reformer John Calvin. Calvin believed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception..

​

Before Calvin developed a systematic theology of Augustinian Protestantism, Martin Luther asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception.

​

The Anglican Church also continues in the reformation understanding of Original Sin. In the Thirty-Nine Articles, Article IX "Of Original or Birth-sin" states: Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man,

---

Man guilty from the get go. Do you require that I evidence Christianity holding man guilty for his own sin?- What I find irrelevant to Christianities view is purpledawn's non-Christian view.- More thumbnail than random I'd be arguing..