Do I sin because of Adam?

[Darkstar]

There is most likely meaning in the order, and in the choice of players. The word "making" would be a literary tool.

Err...after thinking it over, the follow up question wouldn't make sense if Genesis were interpreted non-literally, so never mind.

[fr0d0]

There is most likely meaning in the order, and in the choice of players. The word "making" would be a literary tool.

Err...after thinking it over, the follow up question wouldn't make sense if Genesis were interpreted non-literally, so never mind.

My interpretation is strictly literal. But perhaps not as you know it Jim

---

Sin is defined to be blameworthy.
A sin would not be blameworthy if we could not avoid the sin.
Therefore it's possible to avoid sins.
Therefore it's possible a human to be sinless.

If you reject the conclusion, it would mean sin is not always blameworthy or that it would be blameworthy even if we could not avoid it. Both of these are illogical. The conclusion necessarily follows.

There can be sinless humans or otherwise, sin doesn't exist.

No there cannot be sinless humans. You can avoid sins, but never with permanence.

Of course Jesus was the sinless human, if that completes the circle for you.

Other religions use actual sacrifice as payback.

[Mystic]

No there cannot be sinless humans. You can avoid sins, but never with permanence.

Sins are not blameworthy if they are inevitable. If there is no way for you to avoid sin, then you can't be blamed for sin.

The conclusion follows from the premises. It doesn't make sense to attack the conclusion and not the argument or premises that lead to it. So which premise do you have an issue with? Or is the argument invalid?

---

I guess I can re-make the syllogism.

A property of sins is that they are blameworthy.
If we can't avoid a sin, it would not be blameworthy.
If we are bound to do at least one sin, then we cannot be blameworthy for doing that one sin.
Therefore we aren't bound to do at least one sin (1, 3).
Therefore it's possible to be sinless.

[fr0d0]

You can avoid the sin, you are just pre-disposed to do it, if you deny 'good'. Even if you acknowledge 'good' though, you're still at odds with your nature. ie it isn't black and white like your reduction. Therefore you cannot reduce it to that.

---

I think this enters the realm of pre-destination. We all follow our programming*, and from retrospect could be blameless. But we can never have that perspective, so we shoulder the responsibility for all of our chices.

*we are biological machines that cannot choose to do anything but what influences us.

[Mystic]

Whatever the case maybe, whatever level of sin, how grey it is, it needs to be blameworthy to be a sin, and there had to be a chance of avoiding it...can we agree upon this much? (the conclusion necessarily follows from that)

Note: This doesn't state any sinless humans existed, it simply shows it's possible.

[junkyardboy]

Even if i ignored a long litany of things that would give me posts and post of things to laugh about.....

that's like saying that some guy had homosexual sex -because- he had a penis.

Let me suggest what you might have been trying to communicate? That "self will" gives one the ability to sin.

exerting self will over God's will is rebellion and thus sin
the exerting of self will is not in and of itself sinful but only becomes sin when it rebels against the will of someone in greater authority
God's will v. man's self will

[The Grand Nudger]

exerting self will over God's will is rebellion and thus sin

Oh, is it now

the exerting of self will is not in and of itself sinful

Then you're going to have to rethink the above - aren't you? Exerting self will -in opposition to- gods will, is what you probably meant to say there. If I was exerting my own self will with no reference or knowledge of gods will - over gods will- it wouldn't be sinful.

but only becomes sin when it rebels against the will of someone in greater authority
God's will v. man's self will

Right, so, pretty much what I just stated - that self will gives you the ability to sin, not that you sin -because- you have self will. Right?

[junkyardboy]

exerting self will over God's will is rebellion and thus sin

Oh, is it now

the exerting of self will is not in and of itself sinful

Then you're going to have to rethink the above - aren't you? Exerting self will -in opposition to- gods will, is what you probably meant to say there. If I was exerting my own self will with no reference or knowledge of gods will - over gods will- it wouldn't be sinful.

but only becomes sin when it rebels against the will of someone in greater authority
God's will v. man's self will

Right, so, pretty much what I just stated - that self will gives you the ability to sin, not that you sin -because- you have self will. Right?

self will gives you the ability to oppose someone else's will
remember the adage 'happy wife, happy life'?
be self willed and see how long your marriage lasts

[Godscreated]

Show me without a doubt that Adam did not exist, I have no doubt that God exist. You are the one claiming he did not, I just answered your question. Before you post it, no I can not prove to you God exist, actually that is not my responsibility, that work belongs to God.

Like I said before, that is faith. You don't need that standard of evidence for everything. Do you believe that Muhammad split that moon?

Faith is a step to knowing and knowing to knowledge, I do know God exist with no doubt, I have been given knowledge of who God is and what He's done for me. The reason I can not give you proof God exist, you do not want to consider it, if you decide you want to know God will reveal to you His existence. As for Muhammad splitting the moon, it looks as if he failed, it is in one piece and the astronauts found no scar, so no I do not believe he did. Muhammad was a real man, Islam says he was a prophet, for them that's so, for Christians it's not true, but then I do not believe we worship the same God. Since the God I believe in is the creator, He would be the only One who could split the moon.

[Darkstar]

My interpretation is strictly literal.

So if it is literal, then an omniscient god would know both that Satan would turn on him and that if he did, Satan would lead Adam and Eve to eat the fruit if they were not given an understanding of right and wrong. God knows what will be the result in every possible scenario depending on the starting conditions he creates, so why would he even create Satan if he knew this would happen? If god created Adam and Eve in a way that he knew how they would turn out, would he not have, at the very least indirectly, created their sinful nature?