Why is sin heritable?

Everyone is susceptible to sin according to the bible. If literally everyone desires sin, and Yahweh is the Creator, make your own conclusions.Secondly, the verses I suspect you are alluding to don't say that sin is inheritable, but that if you sin, up to the 3rd and 4th generation (children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren) are in jeopardy.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

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."

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

So God went out of his way to create man, so that they can be perfect with him? Seems kind of inane and pointless, wouldn't you agree? I mean, that really begs a lot of preceding questions.What purpose does God have for the Starfish and Sea Urchin?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

No, we don't know that at all. All we know is the measly details provided by the bible.Death could not be a reasonable consequence because, according to Paul, death entered the world as a result of A&E sin.And we know they had zero comprehension of sin because they ate the fruit before they could conceptualize it. That is why immediately after they ate it, they felt the pang of guilt, but not before. Let me count the ways:1. God is the Creator and was the one who imparted their innate desires to sin in the first place.2. He places a tree that serves no purpose EXCEPT for temptation. So you either eat it and know what is bad, so you can avoid it, or you don't eat it and it just serves as a temptation.3. He allows the world's most cunning creature unlimited access two most naive human beings on planet earth and gives them no indication to abdicate the Serpent.4. Because death entered the world as a result of their sin, death BEFOREHAND was of no intellectual consequence to them.For the sake of the argument, we'll suppose that Adam is guilty of something (I'll let you know precisely for what if I ever figure it out). But is not God even more indictable?It was a set up. He provided the bait, they took it. It was all part of the plan. So human beings don't have instincts??? If you say yes, then you acknowledge that they have natural desires. And according to the bible, who created man? Yahweh... So deductive reasoning then tells you.....????? *sigh* I just assumed you were playing the role of devil's advocate. All right, let's have it. What are you up to? Is this my cue to ask you what the difference between God and Yahweh is?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

And, again, what purpose does it serve to warn somebody of something they have no concept for? You have to look at this in context and not how you understand it.If I was God and I said, if you do x, glunderhsirpdfms will happen as a resultant consequence. If you cannot even comprehend what in the fuck a glunderhsirpdfms is, it would be like telling a baby not to touch the burner on the stove.... Useless.... Futile..... Moot......Yahweh, in his infinite wisdom, surely would have known that. So the point that God told him would not reasonably exonerate God, nor should it reasonably condemn Adam or Eve. Look at it in perspective, Mod. What is death? What is glunderhsirpdfms? It's like a baby; completely innocent and incapable of understanding bad until the moment its get bit, burned, scraped, etc. Help them out? He helped them out by placing the tree there to begin with? He helped them out by giving the Serpent unlimited access to them? Fix their problems??? He's the cause of ALL of their problems. So omnipotent and omnipresent beings don't know the future? That's not God. Then that pretty much makes the choice for them, no? That's like saying he gives us the choice to eat. Technically it's a choice, but not much of one, aye?If Yahweh created man, he created all their instincts. Surely we agree upon that. Otherwise, something just springs out of thin air. So are we looking at this from a literary perspective or are we assuming (as fundamentalist Christians do) that everything contained within the bible is literal and historical? If God didn't create anything, would it negatively impact a Being which is perfectly contained within itself? He doesn't mention the wiles of the Serpent, whatsoever. Does it strike you as odd that the first humans, along with every other trillion humans to follow (except Jesus Christ) have all failed the test? We're not therefore dealing with an anomaly. We're dealing with 99.99999 rate of failure. So who's to blame? The product (which didn't create itself) or the manufacturer?The story is all one, big set up. I'm assuming we are using the bible as the guide. Since you mentioned Paul's understanding, we're looking at it from that perspective. If we're to analyze the bible from a literal perspective, then death entered the world as a consequence for Adam and Eve. Well, lets stick you in the middle of Swahili territory with no means of deciphering their language. When they give a warning in their native tongue, that you don't understand, and end up stabbing you to death, we'll let the world that it's your fault for not heeding their warning.Same principle applies. No it isn't. That's the one question never answered by the bible. No, that has nothing to do with my argument. That sounds like more like envy. All it means is that God holds all the cards. Any perception of good and evil is directly attributed to God on the basis that he is God. That's a matter of interpretation.However, seeing if God remains true to his own standard is much easier. For instance, if God's law is absolute, is it ever acceptable to lie? That's because you have to read behind the lines. The undertone running through the whole series of books leads to one conclusion. Man is imperfect, man can do no good on his own, man needs God for salvation. God is supreme. The End.The rest is just details. Sure, whatever, they have souls. Do they also have instincts? Because according to the bible, animals also have spirits. Whatever, it's irrelevant. I am asking you if human beings have instincts, and not your interpretation of whether or not the bible thinks humans have instincts. That being the case, then you should concede the point that death entered the world as a result of A&E's sin. That being the case, my point that they could not understand the consequence of death invalidates the premise of the caveat altogether.... Making my point all the more sensible from either a literary or a literal perspective. Some aspects of the bible are true. Most of it is likely an embellished adaptation, though.The point is that you and I would probably agree that from a literary perspective, there is a "moral of the story." We agree upon that, but the conclusion is faulty when juxtaposing that with the real world.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Who first introduced Satan into the world?I've always been mystified as to how God created everything except bad things. Somehow bad things just magically popped in to existence ex nihilo. Perhaps you can clear that up that discrepancy for me, because I can't make heads or tails of it. Then would it be reasonable to say that for ordinary man it is impossible not to sin? If that is the case then is it reasonable to blame man for a condition imparted by God? Isn't that like God blaming for you getting hungry?Man: "Uh, but LORD, I'm hungry because you made it so that I would crave food."God: "SILENCE you insolent twit!!!!" To set up the need for Jesus Christ. The whole point is to prove the frailty of man and the awesomeness of God.The real question (which isn't answered in the bible) is why if there is such an emphasis on the afterlife, why there is a physical life at all?That, and, what great cosmic purpose do Starfish have in God's plan for the world?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

I already did, here it is again:

quote:

---

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned -- Romans 5:12

---

Not in the least is it a lot of work to point out the inconsistencies. The only valid question is whether or not it is on topic. No, Adam comprehending death before the Fall is like a baby comprehending death. If you can explain how that is possible, I'm open to listening. As it stands, we can only assume the he understood it for the sake of the story itself. The only problem is, proceeding chapters in this overall story of the bible paint a different picture. And again you forget that the choices are so limited so as to make them void.Question: Do you have the literal choice not to eat?Answer: Technically, yes, but you will eventually die if you don't.Observation: Not much of a choice now is it?If all of mankind cannot abstain from sin, then that nullifies the choice, no? It's a statistical destiny based on man's desires which were most definitely imparted by God, for nothing can come in to existence without God's hand, no?That's the logical and inescapable conclusion, Mod, EVEN from the perspective a story. Even supposing we're just dealing with a literary work,

quote:

---

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things. -- Isaiah 45:7

---

Predestination and omnipresence: [quote]Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. -- Matthew 10:29-30 Can we stop being vague now? Okay, God is not YHWH, YHWH is not God. What precisely is the significance? Because they cannot control their sin nature, which was created none other than YHWH. I'm saying that giving them the choice for something beyond their control is like telling someone they have the choice not to take a piss. Sure, you technically have the choice, but nature will eventually win, right? Eventually you will piss, eventually you will sin.That is an inescapable conclusion. I am trying to argue the point based on the merits you present. Sometimes Purple Dawn, for instance, gets hung up on semantics and wants to argue her point from a literary point of view, versus the feasibility of real-world plausibility.I'm trying to make sense of why an avowed atheist is suddenly taking the road less traveled. Are you playing the devil's advocate? Are you trolling because you are bored? Are you challenging yourself by trying to defend and indefensible position?I am just trying to get an understanding of your motivation for doing so. You stated that human beings don't have instincts, period, independent of anything else. But are corporeal functions, like hunger or the desire to mate, just functions of an intangible soul? It seems to me that if the spiritual portion of a man (soul) wars with the flesh of that man, that humans indeed have natural instincts and have a desire to satiate them.Moving from A to B, we can further conclude in the Bible that YHWH is responsible for all things coming in to existence, for He is the only eternal lifeform. Moving from C to D we can conclude that it was YHWH which gave man all of his instincts. From D to E we can conclude that since not one human can abstain from sin, that sin is a statistical destiny. Moving from E to F we can finally, and unequivocally, conclude that YHWH is therefore responsible for Adam's sinful nature. At no point was an apple mentioned in the story. That's a later interpretation from dogma. Shitty thing like, what? Give me specifics. Does YHWH have to follow his own rules? In real life I think that is how things work. For the sake of the bible, God appears on all accounts to be the blame. In order to bring it in to the world, one needs to understand the concept, yes? Yeah, I think it's found in this thing called the 10 Commandments. That's a matter of interpretation - whether or not God's law is absolute or relative. How do you interpret it? All one has to do is use logic and know how to read. The conclusion gives itself away.literary perspective, there is a "moral of the story." We agree upon that, but the conclusion is faulty when juxtaposing that with the real world.It certainly contravenes the evidence. But we were talking about 'sin' and 'talking snakes' so...you know.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

That really begs the question, doesn't it? If God is deemed a priori, then whatever he does is considered "perfect" by virtue of the claim itself. So even if God "violated his own law," you could never deem it as such by the virtue that he's perfect.In other words, let's say that genocide is wrong. Suppose God kills a whole bunch of people. Is he wrong? No, but only by the virtue that you claim he's perfect. Indeed you will find ways that he's righteous even in the face of transparent hypocrisy. You will always find a justification because philosophically you can't conceive of God ever being wrong. God didn't have to do anything, least of all create physical beings when such an emphasis is placed on the spiritual world. All that could have been avoided. When did Satan fall, and why? But no human has ever been fully obedient to God. That's the whole reason for Jesus, remember? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Let's use some deductive reasoning here:God created everything, right? If Adam was able to sin, then God was the one that made that possible. That being the case, does that make God culpable for the sin itself? That's really an impossibility, isn't it? If no human has ever been free from sin, we could reasonably say that it is impossible to remain righteous, couldn't we? And if God is the perfect Creator of all, then it's a reasonable conclusion that God made us to sin. That makes God complicit in our sin. We could also believe in Allah too, or face the same fate. Should we therefore believe in Allah because of the supposed consequences? And it is impossible not to sin. Who's fault is that?

quote:

---

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned -- Romans 5:12

---

No, not really. If God imparted the desire to sin, we don't have a fighting chance, evidenced by the very need for Jesus Christ as the atonement.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Define "perfect" in context with humans. Because my understanding would be, if Adam was perfect, he wouldn't have sinned. Exactly my point. That's God's doing. Yes, but he didn't know what sin or death was, so it was unavoidable.What we can deduce from the story:

God imparted man's desires (because they didn't create themselves).

God placed the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in their path. What purpose does it serve other than to tempt?

A & E did not know it was wrong to eat the fruit before, because only by eating the fruit does sin reveal itself.

God placed the Serpent in the Garden with the foreknowledge that he would tempt them, and before they knew right from wrong.

​

Add that all up and you can only reasonably conclude a few things. God was setting up the Fall of Man and he actually made that happen without jeopardizing freewill.

​

It's up to you to find the truth and if you don't you will be separated from God for eternity according to the manuel he left us.

​

Awesome God!

​

quote:

---

And it is impossible not to sin. Who's fault is that?

---

​

The man who ate the fruit.

​

How? Would you blame the baby for lighting the house on fire when the parent gave it the matches, or would you blame the parent?

​

You have a gun in your hand you point it at a person the gun is loaded with live rounds. Are you saying you can not make the choice to pull the trigger and kill the person or to lower the gun and walk away?

​

You need to look at this story in context. They did NOT know right from wrong BEFORE they ate the fruit, right? You and I have hindsight, they did not.

​

Take the responsibility for your own actions no one makes you do anything.

​

Yeah, for us, living in the here and the now. What about Adam and Eve who didn't even have a fighting chance? Add it up, it's as clear as day. In fact, God is the culpable one in the story because he holds all the chips.

​

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Read the story. They didn't know right from wrong before they ate of the fruit.

quote:

---

God imparted man's desires (because they didn't create themselves).

---

I want you to read both statements and then think about that real carefully. Why was there a choice at all? Ah, obviously it serves the purpose of tempting. Read the story again, ICANT. It very clearly says that the tree was the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil, and that as SOON as they ate, their eyes were open, KNOWING right from wrong. That's as plain as day. The Book of Romans says that death entered the world because of their sin. That means God's perfect world didn't include death unless they ate of the fruit. So not only did they have no concept of right and wrong, they also didn't have a concept of death.What a raw deal, not just for them, but we as well. The fuck he didn't! Stop making God out to be some bystander. God, the Creator of the universe and ALL that is in it, made Satan, knew he was evil, and allowed him access to the world's two most naive human beings on the planet. That makes God just as complicit as Satan himself. What don't you understand about this? He did not know that disobeying was wrong. Read. the. story. I don't care how many ways you say that he chose to be disobedient. He didn't. God gave him his desires, God planted that tree in their path knowing they'd take the bait, God gave the Serpent unlimited access, etc. Naming animals means you understand right from wrong? You do know that intelligence and ignorance do not reflect upon one another, right? I could have the highest IQ ever recorded and still be ignorant about geology or cosmology. God was to blame, and no one else, as far as I am concerned with, based solely on the bible. No, I would say the fact that we all suffer and die as the result of Adam and Eve makes us all get the short end of the stick. I don't know if it is inherited or not, but the bible has contradictory answers on whether or not we pay for the sins of the father. Looking at the A & E story, it would certainly appear that we inherited it since no human has ever abstained from sin. A perfect track record of sin in over a trillion people on the planets existence reasonably leads to the conclusion that God gives us the desire to sin. I mean, we didn't make ourselves.

quote:

---

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. -- Ezekiel 18:20

---

quote:

---

Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation. -- Exodus 34:7

---

If you take the infallible bible position, this is a real humdinger!

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal