original sin

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Dec 30, 2020
91
28
18
Even children know the difference between good and evil, that it is right to obey and wrong to disobey.

In a court is it just to punish an imbecile whose IQ is so low they can't be said to understand that what they have done was wrong?
You still have not submitted your thoughtful, more complicated, and tenable view for everyone to consider.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
29,971
9,675
113
I'll have time to explain better in a few hours after I've made it home from the lab, and can use a computer instead of typing on my tiny phone.

Sorry if I came across as rude it's the idea I take exception to not you - it's a topic I've discussed many times here over the last few years.

Welcome to CC btw, we haven't got to meet yet :)
 
Dec 30, 2020
91
28
18
I'll have time to explain better in a few hours after I've made it home from the lab, and can use a computer instead of typing on my tiny phone.

Sorry if I came across as rude it's the idea I take exception to not you - it's a topic I've discussed many times here over the last few years.

Welcome to CC btw, we haven't got to meet yet :)
All is well. Glad to meet you posthuman. What idea are you taking exception to? I'm eager and happy to communicate with you.
 
Aug 14, 2019
1,376
299
83
If Adam were mortal the consequence of death for disobedience doesn't make sense because death was already going to happen.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
29,971
9,675
113
All is well. Glad to meet you posthuman. What idea are you taking exception to? I'm eager and happy to communicate with you.
i am fully convinced that the idea Adam was created without the capability to make moral & ethical choices & judgements is wrong.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
6,431
1,800
113
i am fully convinced that the idea Adam was created without the capability to make moral & ethical choices & judgements is wrong.
They would have to be made retarded and that doesn't sound anything like in the image of God. Adam has to have a great ability to think to name the animals
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
29,971
9,675
113
It is in the New Testament, until a person is aware he or she has sinned it is not counted against the person. If the person is a believer and is made aware, repentance is necessary.
ok, what about an actual example ?
maybe this is what you were thinking of, JaumeJ? it came to mind

Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin:
but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth

(John 9:41)
 
Aug 14, 2019
1,376
299
83
ok, what about an actual example ?
Romans 7
9I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived 10 and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
29,971
9,675
113
They would have to be made retarded and that doesn't sound anything like in the image of God. Adam has to have a great ability to think to name the animals
also 1 Timothy 2:4 tells us that Adam was not deceived. if he could not discern between right and wrong, i see it as a direct implication that he's deceived, which would contradict scripture. this means when he 'listened to the voice of his wife' she wasn't trying to trick him; that's not what she said to him. it also means he knew exactly what he was doing when he ate of the tree of dying-you-shall-die: he knew that he was committing sin, and that it was wrong. so he did not get the ability to tell the difference between good & evil actions or decisions from the fruit; he had to comprehend moral choice in order to 'know to choose good and reject evil' when God commanded him, to know that it was right to obey and wrong to disobey, and he had to comprehend that he was doing wrong in order for it to be true that he wasn't deceived.

in my opinion. if i'm wrong it'll take some convincing :p
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
6,431
1,800
113
also 1 Timothy 2:4 tells us that Adam was not deceived. if he could not discern between right and wrong, i see it as a direct implication that he's deceived, which would contradict scripture. this means when he 'listened to the voice of his wife' she wasn't trying to trick him; that's not what she said to him. it also means he knew exactly what he was doing when he ate of the tree of dying-you-shall-die: he knew that he was committing sin, and that it was wrong. so he did not get the ability to tell the difference between good & evil actions or decisions from the fruit; he had to comprehend moral choice in order to 'know to choose good and reject evil' when God commanded him, to know that it was right to obey and wrong to disobey, and he had to comprehend that he was doing wrong in order for it to be true that he wasn't deceived.

in my opinion. if i'm wrong it'll take some convincing :p
Adam was not ignorant to blame it on his ole lady LOL :p
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,955
302
83
Oregon
.
Gen 2:25 . .The two of them were naked, the man and his wife, yet they
felt no shame

Webster's defines shame as:

1» guilt, or disgrace

2» a feeling of inferiority or inadequacy, and

3» inhibition.

I think we could probably add self consciousness to that list; defined as
uncomfortably aware of one's self as an object of the observation of others.

In other words, there was absolutely nothing in early Man's psyche
restraining him from parading around in full frontal exposure; and actually,
neither was there anything in his psyche encouraging him to; i.e. they
weren't exhibitionists by any stretch of the imagination because in their
innocence, Adam and his wife simply were neither proud of, nor humiliated
by, their appearance in the buff.

Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by frontal exposure at
first, nor were they self conscious in the slightest because as yet they knew
no cultural boundaries, nor were they infected yet with a guilt complex about
sex and the human body; and concepts like vanity and narcissism had no
point of reference in their thinking whatsoever. They had absolutely no
natural sense of propriety, nor were they even aware of such because their
creator hadn't taught them any proprieties yet at this point.

In other words: they had neither intuition nor training as yet to moderate
their dress code. Had somebody criticized the first couple's appearance, they
would no doubt have stared at their critic like a man taken leave of his
senses because they had not one clue about the meaning of decency.
_
 
Aug 14, 2019
1,376
299
83
.
Gen 2:25 . .The two of them were naked, the man and his wife, yet they
felt no shame

Webster's defines shame as:

1» guilt, or disgrace

2» a feeling of inferiority or inadequacy, and

3» inhibition.

I think we could probably add self consciousness to that list; defined as
uncomfortably aware of one's self as an object of the observation of others.

In other words, there was absolutely nothing in early Man's psyche
restraining him from parading around in full frontal exposure; and actually,
neither was there anything in his psyche encouraging him to; i.e. they
weren't exhibitionists by any stretch of the imagination because in their
innocence, Adam and his wife simply were neither proud of, nor humiliated
by, their appearance in the buff.

Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by frontal exposure at
first, nor were they self conscious in the slightest because as yet they knew
no cultural boundaries, nor were they infected yet with a guilt complex about
sex and the human body; and concepts like vanity and narcissism had no
point of reference in their thinking whatsoever. They had absolutely no
natural sense of propriety, nor were they even aware of such because their
creator hadn't taught them any proprieties yet at this point.

In other words: they had neither intuition nor training as yet to moderate
their dress code. Had somebody criticized the first couple's appearance, they
would no doubt have stared at their critic like a man taken leave of his
senses because they had not one clue about the meaning of decency.
_
Or not one clue about ithe meaning of indecency.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
18,124
4,520
113
maybe this is what you were thinking of, JaumeJ? it came to mind

Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin:
but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth
(John 9:41)

Absolutely, but there is a verse teaching if a person is not aware of a sinful act made, he is not responsible for sinning.

Since losing my vision I do not attempt to cut and passte from the Word, not even from text aloud features. If people do not believe me, fine, they can look up the teaching for themselves, really! God bless you and all.
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,955
302
83
Oregon
.
Continued from post No.133

The story recorded in the third chapter of Genesis is a bit of an enigma. The
reason being that not only can the creator scan the future as if viewing live
coverage, but He's also fully capable of manipulating it. In other words; the
events in this chapter were neither unexpected nor inevitable.

People get upset with the all-powerful loving God for not stepping in and
preventing the so-called fall of man. But they need to remember that
humanity wasn't created to be the subject of domestication and animal
husbandry-- i.e. beasts --no, people were created in the image and likeness
of God, and given complete dominion over the entire Earth. In that capacity
humanity is at liberty to manage its own affairs as if it were a divine
sovereign. (Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, and Ps 82:6)

Besides; does anybody really want to live in a micro-managed Big Brother
society? I don't think so. But that's the logic behind just about every product
liability lawsuit. Rather than taking the bull by the horns and doing
something to cure humanity's propensity to destroy itself, product liability
lawsuits go after suppliers who provide the means. Well, all I can say to that
is: thank God the creator is out of their reach or they'd do the same to Him.

God gave humanity the liberty to build itself up and/or tear itself down; and
to nurture the Earth and/or exploit it. Actually, that's the way many of us
prefer it because we want to be our own guiding lights rather than have
bosses manage our lives for us without our consent.
_
 
Dec 30, 2020
91
28
18
We can speculate all we want. The smart thing to do is to check out what the Bible says is wrong with man. It says that the problem with man is his heart. That is why when a person is chosen by the Father, his sins are washed away by the Son, and his heart is fixed by the Holy Spirit who fills our hearts with the same love shared by the Father an Son, and therefore perfects us.
 
Dec 30, 2020
91
28
18
You still have not submitted your thoughtful, more complicated, and tenable view for everyone to consider.
also 1 Timothy 2:4 tells us that Adam was not deceived. if he could not discern between right and wrong, i see it as a direct implication that he's deceived, which would contradict scripture. this means when he 'listened to the voice of his wife' she wasn't trying to trick him; that's not what she said to him. it also means he knew exactly what he was doing when he ate of the tree of dying-you-shall-die: he knew that he was committing sin, and that it was wrong. so he did not get the ability to tell the difference between good & evil actions or decisions from the fruit; he had to comprehend moral choice in order to 'know to choose good and reject evil' when God commanded him, to know that it was right to obey and wrong to disobey, and he had to comprehend that he was doing wrong in order for it to be true that he wasn't deceived.

in my opinion. if i'm wrong it'll take some convincing :p
also 1 Timothy 2:4 tells us that Adam was not deceived. if he could not discern between right and wrong, i see it as a direct implication that he's deceived, which would contradict scripture. this means when he 'listened to the voice of his wife' she wasn't trying to trick him; that's not what she said to him. it also means he knew exactly what he was doing when he ate of the tree of dying-you-shall-die: he knew that he was committing sin, and that it was wrong. so he did not get the ability to tell the difference between good & evil actions or decisions from the fruit; he had to comprehend moral choice in order to 'know to choose good and reject evil' when God commanded him, to know that it was right to obey and wrong to disobey, and he had to comprehend that he was doing wrong in order for it to be true that he wasn't deceived.

in my opinion. if i'm wrong it'll take some convincing :p
We can speculate all we want. The smart thing to do is to check out what the Bible says is wrong with man. It says that the problem with man is his heart. That is why when a person is chosen by the Father, his sins are washed away by the Son, and his heart is fixed by the Holy Spirit who fills our hearts with the same love shared by the Father an Son, and therefore perfects us.
Also, the unsaved are referred to as "children of disobedience". So they disobeyed when they followed their hearts instead of God's will. They didn't have to have an understanding of morality, just an understanding of obey or suffer the consequences.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
29,971
9,675
113
.
Gen 2:25 . .The two of them were naked, the man and his wife, yet they
felt no shame


Webster's defines shame as:

1» guilt, or disgrace

2» a feeling of inferiority or inadequacy, and

3» inhibition.

I think we could probably add self consciousness to that list; defined as
uncomfortably aware of one's self as an object of the observation of others.


In other words, there was absolutely nothing in early Man's psyche
restraining him from parading around in full frontal exposure; and actually,
neither was there anything in his psyche encouraging him to; i.e. they
weren't exhibitionists by any stretch of the imagination because in their
innocence, Adam and his wife simply were neither proud of, nor humiliated
by, their appearance in the buff.


Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by frontal exposure at
first, nor were they self conscious in the slightest because as yet they knew
no cultural boundaries, nor were they infected yet with a guilt complex about
sex and the human body; and concepts like vanity and narcissism had no
point of reference in their thinking whatsoever. They had absolutely no
natural sense of propriety, nor were they even aware of such because their
creator hadn't taught them any proprieties yet at this point.


In other words: they had neither intuition nor training as yet to moderate
their dress code. Had somebody criticized the first couple's appearance, they
would no doubt have stared at their critic like a man taken leave of his
senses because they had not one clue about the meaning of decency.
_
you ought to get your definitions of "shame" and "nakedness" by comparing the things God says about each in scripture, rather than from mssr. Webster.

our common language ((remember Babel?)) sometimes does not coincide with God's definition of words. like life, and death, for example.