Why do Christians accept original sin but not collective responsibility?

[Ellen Brown]

I can understand that you would feel this way. I look at it from the perspective that God knew whether it was Adam, Eve, you or me each of us would make the same choice and choose the same act of disobedience and we each would on our own become estranged from God.

It is interesting that Mormons see the "Apple Incident" as something that was necessary in order for man to "progress". "Progress" has a special meaning that Mormons themselves use, and I'm not sure they would be satisfied with my explanation. IMO Mormon culture is sort of a few decades behind the rest of America, no insult intended.

 

[InChrist]

It is interesting that Mormons see the "Apple Incident" as something that was necessary in order for man to "progress". "Progress" has a special meaning that Mormons themselves use, and I'm not sure they would be satisfied with my explanation. IMO Mormon culture is sort of a few decades behind the rest of America, no insult intended.

Except in Mormonism it is taught that It was God's plan and He wanted A&E to eat the fruit so they could progress. In biblical Christianity it was sin, wrong, and disobedience and against God's will for them to do so. Had they trusted God they could have progressed without sin and disobedience, I think..

 

[74x12]

I thought we were made in the image of God?

Adam was made in the image of God. We're all descendants of his. Because he sinned we're born into that sinful nature; instead of the pure nature he had before sinning.

Jesus came to restore us again to the perfect image of God. That's why according to Jesus' teachings you have to be born again. (John 3:3-5)

 

[Katzpur]

In biblical Christianity it was sin, wrong, and disobedience and against God's will for them to do so.

Sin is wrong according to Mormonism, too. But sin is "the willful disobedience of a moral law or religious principle." Disobedience without knowledge is not sinful. How is it possible to sin without knowing the difference between good and evil? Sin, after all, is the willful choice to do evil. What exactly do you see the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and evil to have given them if it wasn't the knowledge of good and evil?

Had they trusted God they could have progressed without sin and disobedience, I think..

How is something even to be deemed "good" if there is nothing to which it can be compared? How would you even recognize that you had good health if neither you nor anyone you knew personally or had ever even heard on had ever experienced poor health? Likewise, how is any choice we make a "good" or "righteous" one if there are no options? How can you truly progress without any challenges to overcome or trials to deal with? How is life in a beautiful garden where you never have to deal with anything negative really going to build character or prove your obedience?

Let me ask you something. Do you believe God knew in advance that Adam and Eve would succumb to Satan's promise to them that they would be as God was if they ate the fruit, or did He think they might actually be able to withstand the temptation? If God had wanted Adam and Eve to stay in the Garden of Eden forever, why did He even allow Satan to tempt them? He certainly didn't have to, and could have prevented it. He could have put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden, told them not to eat its fruit and left it at that. Why do you think He didn't do that?

 

[Katzpur]

Adam was made in the image of God. We're all descendants of his. Because he sinned we're born into that sinful nature; instead of the pure nature he had before sinning.

So do you believe that it's possible for an infant to sin? Do you believe that an infant who died will be held responsible in any way for Adam's and Eve's transgression?

 

[Katzpur]

IMO Mormon culture is sort of a few decades behind the rest of America, no insult intended.

In what way? And why in the world would you expect such a statement not to be interpreted as an insult? If someone were to tell you that your culture was "a few decades behind the rest of America," would you be flattered? You'd certainly see the remark as something other than a neutral observation.

 

[74x12]

So do you believe that it's possible for an infant to sin? Do you believe that an infant who died will be held responsible in any way for Adam's and Eve's transgression?

Yes it's possible for an infant to sin. For example no one has teach an infant to lie. Many do it naturally when they're in trouble. But of course they're innocent regardless.

I do not believe that infants are held responsible for their sins or anyone else's. How could they be?

 

[74x12]

So do you believe that it's possible for an infant to sin? Do you believe that an infant who died will be held responsible in any way for Adam's and Eve's transgression?

I don't really believe we are responsible for Adam and Eve's transgression.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes it's possible for an infant to sin. For example no one has teach an infant to lie. Many do it naturally when they're in trouble. But of course they're innocent regardless.

So even before an child knows that it's wrong to lie, you think it's a sin for them to do so?

I do not believe that infants are held responsible for their sins or anyone else's. How could they be?

Hey, I don't know. I don't believe they should be, but plenty of Christians assume that they bear Adam's guilt from the moment they draw their first breath.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't really believe we are responsible for Adam and Eve's transgression.

Me neither!

 

[74x12]

So even before an child knows that it's wrong to lie, you think it's a sin for them to do so?

Based off the Bible it appears to be. (Psalm 58:3) However like I said, i don't think they're judged for it.

Hey, I don't know. I don't believe they should be, but plenty of Christians assume that they bear Adam's guilt from the moment they draw their first breath.

I know. I think we bear their guilt by being made in their sinful likeness, but we don't bear the guilt of their sin. We do plenty of our own sins though.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Except in Mormonism it is taught that It was God's plan and He wanted A&E to eat the fruit so they could progress. In biblical Christianity it was sin, wrong, and disobedience and against God's will for them to do so. Had they trusted God they could have progressed without sin and disobedience, I think..

That seems more correct than my explanation. I still want to afford them the freedom to exercise their beliefs as much as I demand my own.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I want to credit @Ellen Brown for this idea

Without regurgitating scripture, I'm curious in the Christian theology of original sin ergo, " the sins of the father" why do some Christians not take responsibility for ancestral actions but can take on the responsibility of the actions of Adam? For example many Christians regarding the issue of slavery and/or the termination of Native American lands or the mistreatment of others say:

"I was not around back then"

or

"My family didn't own slaves"

or

"My ancestors may have done that but that was a long time ago."

Why is it that you readily accept Adam's sin against God, who by all rights you can claim Adam as the progenitor of mankind, but choose to not accept the actions of your ethic ancestors to lands that did not belong to them or the mistreatment of people?

Edit: Changed Thread Title

It was evangelicals that fought to end slavery like William Wilberforce
Liberals in Europe largely supported slavery,

Jesus freed the oppressed as part of his job description
Praise finalie psalm part 1 psalm 146

 

[Epic Beard Man]

.

It was evangelicals that fought to end slavery like William Wilberforce
Liberals in Europe largely supported slavery,

Jesus freed the oppressed as part of his job description
Praise finalie psalm part 1 psalm 146

Sigh....Reading is hard sometimes, I understand, but the thread really isn't about slavery it really is about the contradictory nature of original sin concept.

BTW do you even know what liberalism means?

Dixiecrats large proponents of slavery in the 13 colonies were not liberals. You also forget it was the so-called Christians that enslaved people as well.

See this: How Republicans went from the party of Lincoln to the party of Trump, in 13 maps

Now I wish not to make this a thread about political parties but I encourage you to re-read the beginning opinion over.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Transmission of original sin

St Augustine, who largely devised the theory of original sin, thought that original sin was transmitted from generation to generation through sexual intercourse. Augustine did not say exactly how this happened.

He said that it was transmitted by "concupiscence", when people had sex and conceived a child.

Concupiscence is a technical theological word that Augustine used to refer to sexual desire as something bad in the soul that was inseparable from normal human sexual impulses.

Sexual desire was bad, he taught, because it could totally overwhelm those caught up in it, depriving them of self-control and rational thought. This disapproving view of passion was quite common among Christians of Augustine's time.

Augustine thought that concupiscence was present in all sexual intercourse. He thought that it was just as bad and uncontrolled in a marriage as it was in non-marital sex, but that an excuse could be made for it within marriage because its purpose was to produce legitimate children.

This bad element in sex provides the means by which original sin is transmitted from father to child. It transmits both humanity's guilt for Adam's crime and the sickness or defect that gives human beings a sinful nature.


BBC - Religions - Christianity: Original sin

 

[Ellen Brown]

It was evangelicals that fought to end slavery like William Wilberforce
Liberals in Europe largely supported slavery,

Jesus freed the oppressed as part of his job description
Praise finalie psalm part 1 psalm 146

Um, if I might modify the rhetoric? The end of slavery in the UK, and Europe was not the blood letting it was in America. There is a book about it, and a very heart rending movie. And, in a sense some Americans are still fighting that battle because America is so warlike.

 

[stvdv]

The problem I see with people unable to explain this question is the selective acceptance of behavior. With that being said

I explained quite well the question

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I explained quite well the question

I should have said Christians who believe in original sin. you've explained your interpretation on the matter.

 

[Jumi]

"In AD 418, the Council at Carthage rejected the views of a man named Pelagius. Pelagius believed that each soul was directly created by God and thus man was born without a sinful nature. If true, it would follow that a person could be saved on personal merit, apart from the Savior’s atoning sacrifice. The Council condemned Pelagianism as heresy because of passages, such as Romans 5:12–21, which emphatically state that because of Adam’s sin, all of his descendants have been made sinners."

These are discussions that mainline Christian denominations traditionally have deemed heretical. As non-Christian I can't but wonder why?

Pelagius was disturbed by the immorality he encountered in Rome and saw Christians using human frailty as an excuse for their failure to live a Christian life. He taught that the human will, as created with its abilities by God, was sufficient to live a sinless life, although he believed that God's grace assisted every good work. Pelagius did not believe that all humanity was guilty in Adam's sin, but said that Adam had condemned mankind through bad example. The value of Christ's redemption was, in his opinion, limited mainly to instruction and example.

Pelagianism makes more sense, the original sin is an idea that often leads to people just accepting that they can't do better. I think the error of rejecting him has been the cause of many evils perpetrated by people calling themselves Christian throughout history.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

These are discussions that mainline Christian denominations traditionally have deemed heretical. As non-Christian I can't but wonder why?



Pelagianism makes more sense, the original sin is an idea that often leads to people just accepting that they can't do better. I think the error of rejecting him has been the cause of many evils perpetrated by people calling themselves Christian throughout history.

Well I'm inclined to believe Pelagius.

"Before eating the fruit they did not know the difference between good and evil; thus they did not possess the knowledge which enables human beings to exercise freedom of choice. By eating the fruit they acquired this knowledge, and from that moment onwards they were free. Thus the story of their banishment from Eden is in truth the story of how the human race gained its freedom: by eating fruit from the tree of knowledge, Adam and Eve became mature human beings, responsible to God for their actions." Letter of Pelagius to Demetrias