Muslim Seeking a Refutation of Original Sin

[czgibson]

Greetings,

for example tomorrow- its going to happen but what is going to happen?

so we believe in these things though we do not know of it.

How do you know tomorrow is going to happen? It's a famous philosophical principle that none of us can be sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. It very probably will, but that doesn't amount to certain knowledge.

Peace

 

[Grace Seeker]

Hey guys! I was recently discussing religion with one of my Christian Brothers who posed some questions for me. I told him I would get back to him on these when I have proper responses. That's why I came here. Brothers and Sisters, I know we don't believe in original sin and the Prophet(pbuh) said that no soul will ear the burden of another. But my friend asked that if that was true, and we aren't responsible for what others do, why have we been banished from the garden for Adam's sins? What I'm basically asking is shouldnt we be in the garden right now? Adam made a mistake but we didnt and why are we sufferrng for his mistake if his sins dontaffect us? An answer for htis would REALLY be appreciated!

Thanks for the help and I hope to be enlightened.

Hey, I'm a Chrsitian pastor, who believes in original sin, and even I can refute the concept of original sin that you presented here. Quite simply, the idea that persons today bear the sin of another is not Biblical. No where in the Bible does it state that anyone other than Jesus Christ bore anyone else's sin. No, we are each punished for our own sin.

I hope that helps with that problem. But, I'm not sure how it helps you address the real problem associated with original sin. That idea is that despite God's ability and willingness to forgive, that sin has its consequences on both the one who commits it and even on innocent bystanders who in a sense are splattered by it. In other words we don't have to actually have committed the sin to be tarnished by it, especially if the world we live in is itself a fallen world. And because of Adam's sin, we do in fact live in a fallen world.

Sin is real, it changes the world we live in and the nature of our relationship with God. Because sin entered the world, we must all deal with the consequences of that entry of sin into the world. One way is to live perfect lives ourselves, but no one ever has. And one reasons that no one ever has is that we all tend to have a desire to think of ourself as #1. But, as I know you well know, we are not #1, God is. So, even before we have done anything, even before we act out committing sins, we are sinful in our very nature simply because of the way we think.

If you can point to one persons, other than Jesus, who never sinned. Who never even once, however, slightly, thought of himself and his will before considereing God's, then I will admit that there is no such thing as original sin. But I have yet to have anyone point to such a person. Even Muhammad, it is admitted, was not perfect.

That sinful nature appears to be found in every human being from the oldest to even the very youngest. Thus, for that reason, all of us, from the best of us to the worst, are equally in need of a redeemer who can change the nature of our relationship with God.

 

[Imam]

That idea is that despite God's ability and willingness to forgive, that sin has its consequences on both the one who commits it and even on innocent bystanders who in a sense are splattered by it. In other words we don't have to actually have committed the sin to be tarnished by it

The idea that all people are to be punished because of an act of one, a relatively innocous act at that, borders on the bizarre and is a living refutation of any belief in a biblical God of justice and impartiality.

If you can point to one persons, other than Jesus, who never sinned. , then I will admit that there is no such thing as original sin. But I have yet to have anyone point to sch a person. .

according to the Bible narratives a handful of characters never sinned

among them,JOSEPH
there is not one instance that he ever sinned,and if you claim that he sinned outside the Bible record ,then the burden is on your shoulder to prove it.....

the same burden will be on the shoulder of anyone claims that Jesus outside the NT narratives(by the way according to the NT he did sin,eg, he sinned by insulting the Scribes and Pharisees, calling them "fools, a generation of snakes,sons of snakes etc....,he sinned by destroying intentionally others properities,causing the death of a herd of animals,about 2000 of them drowned in the sea) never sinned..but no wonder, the one who believes in Trinity,original sin to believe that Jesus never sinned

It is obvious that Seeker tried his best to make the original sin appears as a rational concept, as a matter of not only it is irrational but also has no old testament basis......

here is what one could say a rational analysis to the so called original sin....



The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy ch9.p357

Original Sin-- In the fifth chapter of Romans Paul created a concept-Original Sin--that is crucial to Christianity. He alleged humanity is under a curse because of Adam's failings in the Garden of Eden. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Rom. 5:12)." "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Cor. 15:22)." (Also note Rom. 5:17-19). Yet, despite Paul's assertions it's difficult to see how the condemnations pronounced upon Adam, Eve, and the Serpent in the third chapter of Genesis (Gen. 3:14-19) condemned all mankind to eternal punishment. Paul's interpretation is just not warranted by the narrative. Gen. 3:14, for example,
says:"And the Lord God said unto the serpent, 'Because thou hast done
this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the
field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the
days of thy life'". Clearly this bestows no curse upon Adam and doesn't
materially affect the serpent. How did the serpent move before, if not
upon its belly? It's difficult to imagine a serpent walking upright or finding one that eats dust. Even if he had walked on legs, the alteration is not germane to the issue. It is the curse on Adam that matters.
Gen. 3:15 (NIV) says: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers (her seed- KJV, RSV); he will crush
your head and you will strike his heel." These curses sound ominous but
are of little consequence for several reasons. In the first place, the
serpent, i.e., the Devil, didn't have offspring. According to Christianity the battle between good and evil is between the Devil and all others. Nothing is said about the Devil's children. Secondly, if "the woman" refers to Eve, then her offspring could refer to any person who lived. By what rationale can Paul say this verse is referring to one specific individual, Jesus, who lived hundred of years later in another part of the world? Her seed (RSV) must be referring to one person. If not, if it is referring to all of Eve's descendants, then to
whom does "he" refer? Thirdly, the waters are muddied even further by the fact that the KJV and the RSV say "her seed" and seed is always plural in the Old Testament. It's never used to refer to a single individual, such as Jesus. And lastly, the "he" couldn't be Jesus, as Paul contends, because Jesus never crushed the head of Satan. If he had, then how could there still be "sinners" and how could the Serpent still be doing injury? Romans 16:20, which says: "And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly" and 1 Thess. 2:18, which says: "Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us" show that even after the death of Jesus, Satan still lived and exercised control over people. The best christians can do with this problem is allege Jesus will destroy Satan when Christ returns. Assuming his return, however, is pure speculation, relying on hope and a promise.
Gen. 3:16 says: "Unto the woman he said, 'I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee'." Even if this verse were true, it would not mark the establishment of Original Sin, but only explain why women have pain during childbirth and have been dominated by men. "Thy desire shall be to thy husband" doesn't sound like a curse or punishment.Gen. 3:17 says: "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life(RSV)." This verse does little more than condemn man to work for a living and curse the ground upon which he labors.Gen. 3:18 says: "...thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field (RSV)." According to Gen. 1:29: "And God said, 'Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food'," the plants of the field were already bestowed upon man for food. It's difficult to see this as a curse, in any event.Gen. 3:19 says: "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground...(RSV)." eating bread in the sweat of his face or working to produce food partly explains why man was created in the first place. Gen. 2:5, which says: "...and there was not a man to till
the ground (RSV)" and Gen. 2:15, which says: "And the Lord took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it (RSV)" show man was put into the Garden of Eden to work and keep it up-- a blessing of healthful work instead of idle existence. Except for having to work for a living, this is no curse upon Adam or mankind.In summary, much of the "Curse" is upon the helpless earth which Yahweh (God) had just created. There is not a single word or remotest hint at sin, at death, or eternal ****ation. Every clause of the "curse" is no curse at all. God told Adam that because of what he did the ground is cursed, he must toil for food, thorns and thistles shall be brought forth to him, and he must eat the plants of the field.

Where is the curse of Original Sin?
From the first curse in Genesis 3 to the end of Malachi, amid all the ravings threatening death upon the Chosen People, there is not the remotest reference in all the Old Testament to the Snake Story, the Curse of Adam, the Fall of Man, or the necessity of Redemption from "Original Sin" Jesus never once mentioned Adam or the pretended curse and fall. He never implied his mission was to undo what Adam had done. Not one of the gospel writers uttered anything about Adam, the Curse, or Redemption.

 

[Grace Seeker]

The idea that all people are to be punished because of an act of one, a relatively innocous act at that, borders on the bizarre and is a living refutation of any belief in a biblical God of justice and impartiality.

Again, you are reading your own theology, or worse your own verision of what you think my theology is, into what I am saying. I specifically said that no person is punished for another person's sin, yet you ignored that statement. The statement you quote from me is in fact a correct statement and even your own prophet would agree with it. Sometimes people do pay the consequences of another's sin. If I commit murder, that is a sin. If the person I murder happens to be your father, while you are a child and dependent on him for support, you will also suffer as a result of my sin. My sin has consequences in your life. If you father sins and is put in jail for it, you are also likely to suffer as a consequence of that. Do you deny that these things are true, even though you would not have had anything to do with those sins?

according to the Bible narratives a handful of characters never sinned

Not so.

among them,JOSEPH
there is not one instance that he ever sinned,and if you claim that he sinned outside the Bible record ,then the burden is on your shoulder to prove it.....

There is more than one Joseph mentioned in the Bible, so I am not sure of which one you are speaking. But quite simply, from the Bible, we have this simple statement: "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) And it would apply to anyone you might find mentioned in the Bible who is not specifically excluded from that very universal statement. The only person so excluded is Jesus. Now where in the Bible do you see it state that Joseph, any Joseph, never sinned?

The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy ch9.p357

Original Sin-- In the fifth chapter of Romans Paul created a concept-Original Sin--that is crucial to Christianity.

When you quote a source that says that Paul "created" any concept, you lose all credibility with me. Here is a review I found of the source you cite for your "proof":

In this book McKinsey is preaching to the choir, i.e. immature atheists, skeptics and freethinkers, it will of course bolster their young faith, it is published by Prometheus Books (need I say more). It can of course be used for Christian bashing, especially the young and immature. However the more mature and scholarly Christian apologist will hardly bat an eye-lid.

Until you can discuss the concept of original sin that I actually believe in, and not some strawman concept, there is no point in continuing this conversation, for you are not critiquing something I believe in. Thus, I have no need to defend an attack against something that I don't even hold to be true. So, re-read my post, and then think for yourself rather than quoting someone that attacks a position I don't even hold, and does so poorly as well.

Peace be with you, in your search for guidance.

 

[Imam]

Again, you are reading your own theology, or worse your own verision of what you think my theology is, into what I am saying. I specifically said that no person is punished for another person's sin, yet you ignored that statement. Sometimes people do pay the consequences of another's sin.

your attempt to draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishment" is stillborn because they are two sides of the same coin. They don't oppose but complement one another. As a consequence of what Adam did, mankind is punished. A conscious judgment was made by a supreme being that everyone should be adversely affected because of the deeds of one. That's a judgement in which punishment is being administered

from the Bible, we have this simple statement: "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) And it would apply to anyone you might find mentioned in the Bible who is not specifically excluded from that very universal statement. The only person so excluded is Jesus.

Job 1
1There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

perfection does necessarily include incapability of sinning. Otherwise the being in question is not perfect. If Job could sin, then Job was not perfect,as the text claims.....


If you read the NT well,you should-t have excluded Jesus from (Romans 3:23) list

Jesus did sin,I highlighted 2 examples you skipped........

How could Jesus insult others several times,destroying their properities and not to be considered a sinner among the list of (Romans 3:23) sinners?!!!

When you quote a source that says that Paul "created" any concept, you lose all credibility with me. until you can discuss the concept of original sin that I actually believe in, and not some strawman concept.

you would have done better if you exposed the strawman concept of the source,that quoted the Bible directly.......

the one who focus on the character of the writer of the source rather than his material is the one who would lose credibility....

 

[Grace Seeker]

your attempt to draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishment" is stillborn because they are two sides of the same coin. They don't oppose but complement one another. As a consequence of what Adam did, mankind is punished. A conscious judgment was made by a supreme being that everyone should be adversely affected because of the deeds of one. That's a judgement in which punishment is being administered

Again, that is YOUR read, not mine. I do think there is a difference between consequences and punishment. Mankind is not punished, any more than the child of a parent sent to jail is being punished. And there was not conscious judgment by God to punish all. There was the warn not to do something, and then Adam and Eve did it. They were the one's punished, not us. But that even does have consequences to us even to this day. I am sorry that you are unable to see that, but that simply the way the real world works.

perfection does necessarily include incapability of sinning. Otherwise the being in question is not perfect. If Job could sin, then Job was not perfect,as the text claims.....

Sorry, but no. Adam was created perfect, and yet as we have already both agreed to, Adam still not only was capable of sinning, but did sin. Even Jesus was capable of sinning; he just never did.

If you read the NT well,you should-t have excluded Jesus from (Romans 3:23) list

Jesus did sin,I highlighted 2 examples you skipped........

How could Jesus insult others several times,destroying their properities and not to be considered a sinner among the list of (Romans 3:23) sinners?!!!

I do exclude Jesus on the basis of Hebrews 4:15, which referring to Jesus says: "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin."

you would have done better if you exposed the strawman concept of the source,that quoted the Bible directly.......

the one who focus on the character of the writer of the source rather than his material is the one who would lose credibility....

Paul did not create any concept with regard to original sin. He taught it. But he did not create it. How am I to quote a negative? The author is the one who has the responsibility to not only assert the Paul created such a belief, but to show where he did. I on the other hand can show where centuries prior to Paul, the author of Proverbs posed a rhetorical question:

Who can say, "I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin"? Proverbs 20:9

The answer to that rhetorical question is no one, the same as Paul suggested, but did not create, centuries later.

 

[Imam]

there was not conscious judgment by God to punish all. There was the warn not to do something, and then Adam and Eve did it. They were the one's punished, not us.

You can't be serious. As we noted earlier, Rom. 5:12 says, "...so death passed upon all men, for that ALL HAVE SINNED." We are deemed sinners and die for what Adam did and that isn't punishment? Aren't sinners punished? The 18th verse says, "...as by the offense of one JUDGEMENT came upon all men to condemnation." We are condemned for what Adam did and that isn't punishment? Judgement doesn't entail punishment? The 19th verse says, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners" and that isn't punishment? You quote 1 Cor. 15:22, which says that we all died because of what Adam did and then allege that we are not being punished as a result. How silly! Of course we are. We are paying the penalty for what he did. Adam and Eve didn't just "allow" sin to come into the world; they caused it and they caused it to rain down on everyone.

If Imam once sinned and A conscious judgment was made by a supreme being that all his family should be adversely affected because of the his deed. logically That's a judgement in which punishment is being administered......

Adam was created perfect, and yet as we have already both agreed to, Adam still not only was capable of sinning, but did sin. Even Jesus was capable of sinning; he just never did.

would you cite a chapter or verse denote that Adam was created perfect?
and if such verse does exist,it would be meaningless as the Bible shows that he did sin....

The logic is simple. If he was created perfect but chose to sin or corrupt, he was not created perfect to start with. If he was perfect at no time would he choose to be imperfect because that which is perfect could never choose to be imperfect. If it chose to be imperfect, then it proved it wasn't perfect to begin with.

Job was called by God perfect (Job 1/1)and was capable of sinning; he just never did.
in light of that ,I could say with full mouth we have a Biblical sinless Job...........

I do exclude Jesus on the basis of Hebrews 4:15, which referring to Jesus says: "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin."

and I include Jesus on the basis of the incidents which I mentioned,which you skipped ,that prove him a sinner........

how a sinless , could have insulted those who disagree with him,with the worst insults (sons of snakes etc....)?

how a sinless , could have destroyed others properities?

Paul did not create any concept with regard to original sin. He taught it. But he did not create it. How am I to quote a negative? The author is the one who has the responsibility to not only assert the Paul created such a belief, but to show where he did. I on the other hand can show where centuries prior to Paul, the author of Proverbs posed a rhetorical question: The answer to that rhetorical question is no one, the same as Paul suggested, but did not create, centuries later.

Seeker,till you quote Genesis directly ,showing us upon what basis Paul taught the original sin,I would consider your lines to be offtopic.....

 

[Grace Seeker]

Seeker,till you quote Genesis directly ,showing us upon what basis Paul taught the original sin,I would consider your lines to be offtopic.....

Then we will simply have to disagree. The terms you are looking for are not going to be found in Genesis. In fact, the closest you will find to the use of the phrase "original sin" in the entire Bible is in Job 34:34

"All right-thinking people say— and the wise who have listened to me concur— 'Job is an ignoramus. He talks utter nonsense.' Job, you need to be pushed to the wall and called to account for wickedly talking back to God the way you have. You've compounded your original sin by rebelling against God's discipline, Defiantly shaking your fist at God, piling up indictments against the Almighty One." --The Message

I don't think is relevant to our conversation, so as you ask for me to explain why I say that grass can be blue, but don't allow me to present Kentucky bluegrass as evidence, it seems we have little left to talk about.

I still assert that your understanding of original sin is not what mine is, but you are not willing to settle for my word on my beliefs. So beyond that, how can I help you? It is more like you wish to defend your position, proving yourself right and all others wrong, than to actually seek to understand where another is coming from. Well, argue with yourself. When you wish to seek to understand, let me know and I will try again.

 

[Imam]

The terms you are looking for are not going to be found in Genesis. In fact, the closest you will find to the use of the phrase "original sin" in the entire Bible is in Job 34:34 I don't think is relevant to our conversation,

finally the truth came from your mouth ,seeker......

the term(the pauline hearsay) original sin,not going to be found in Genesis,even Job 34:34 is irrelevant to our conversation......

Paul highlighted the narratives in Genesis regarding Adam,Eve who caused sin to come into the world; and to rain down on everyone

Romans 5:12 (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
1 Corinthians 15:22 (For as in Adam all die)


but truly as you said The term (the pauline original sin hearsay) I'm looking for are not going to be found in Genesis or any place else.

Thanx seeker for your help....

 

[Grace Seeker]

My point being that the term isn't found in Paul either. But if you think the concept of it is enough, then you have to go back at least to Proverbs, so it doesn't originate with Paul either way.

 

[Imam]

My point being that the term isn't found in Paul either. .

The term does exist in Paul and you who have to go back to
Romans 5:12 (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.

Paul claims that by the original sin of Adam We are deemed sinners and death passed upon all men." in other words , We are condemned and paying the penalty for what he did.


penalty and consequences of sin have no distinction,they are two sides of the same coin, and the attempt to draw a distinction between them merely elements of a ruse employed by you...

But if you think the concept of it is enough, then you have to go back at least to Proverbs, so it doesn't originate with Paul either way

where in the proverbs that death came to all men cause of the original sin?
if you find such passage,you have to bring us something to support it from Genesis...

 

[Grace Seeker]

Paul mentions sin, not "original sin". Proverbs 20:9 gives us the rhetorical question in which the answer illustrates that all are sinners.


What do you think that doctrine of "original sin" teaches? I think you are confused with regard to what it really is about. And so you keep attacking something that isn't even what Christians believe with regard to it.

 

[Imam]

". Proverbs 20:9 gives us the rhetorical question in which the answer illustrates that all are sinners.What do you think that doctrine of "original sin" teaches?

Proverbs 20.6
Many a man claims to have unfailing love,
but a faithful man who can find?
7 The righteous man leads a blameless life;
blessed are his children after him.
8 When a king sits on his throne to judge,
he winnows out all evil with his eyes.
9 Who can say, "I have kept my heart pure;
I am clean and without sin"?
10 Differing weights and differing measures—
the LORD detests them both.


the text is clear ,there is not the slightest reference to original sin....

It-s me who should turn your question back to you

What do you think that doctrine of "original sin" teaches?

is it that all human beings are sinful? if so, we agree.

If it is that We are condemned and paying the penalty for the original sin of Adam,according to the Pauline hearsay,witthout backing up his claim from Genesis,here we disagree....
Romans 5:12 (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.

 

[Grace Seeker]

This is what I mean when I say you don't listen. In my very first post on it I said,

Hey, I'm a Chrsitian pastor, who believes in original sin, and even I can refute the concept of original sin that you presented here. Quite simply, the idea that persons today bear the sin of another is not Biblical. No where in the Bible does it state that anyone other than Jesus Christ bore anyone else's sin. No, we are each punished for our own sin.

It is because of Adam's original sin that we are all separated from God, but it isn't meant as a condemnation of us. My great-great...great-grandmother happened to be the first child of Eurpoean ancestory born west of the Applachian mountains. She was born in a mudhut near present day Danville, KY. And the rest of my family then lived in that area for the next several generations. Why? Because my great-great-great ... great-grandfather chose to move across the mountains. It wasn't a condemnation, it wasn't a penalty, but it was a consequence that was passed on to generation after generation based on the decision of one single person who had been their ancestor. Having crossed the mountians to live life on the wilderness frontier, there was no going back. (At least not at that time in history.)

In sinning, Adam was punished. Not others, but there were consequences for others. Just like our sins can sometimes have consequences in other peoples' lives as well.

Prior to that sin, Adam had walked in the garden with God having fellowship with him. But because of his sin he was kicked out of the garden. He no longer was capable of having the same fellowship with God that he was able to have in his pure created state. But, because Adam's children were not born till after this event, they were not born to a man who was capable of passing on his relationship with God to them. The world itself was scarred by sin. Not just Adam and Eve, but all the earth. Sin had entered it.

You see, just as you Muslims teach, mankind is meant to live a life in total submission to the will of God. This is true for Adam too. He can recognize God as sovereign and live in obedience to God and God's will, or he can exert the free will that God gave him and act as if he is his own king. The test for Adam with regard to that choice is the tree with fruit on it in the garden that God has told him not to eat of. This is the moment of truth. Will Adam and Eve respect the will of God, submit, and not eat the fruit from the tree God told them to leave alone and thus recognize God's sovereignty? Or, will they do what they want, excercise their own supposed sovereignty over themselves, and do their own thing despite God's expressed will on the matter? We know the answer to that question all too well. They choose to do what they wanted to do and ignore God.

Well, the direct result of that was to be cast from the Garden and, therefore also, God's presence. As a consequence, not a penalty, all who followed in their footsteps will also live a life quite apart from God as well. But it wasn't God's wrath condemning us any more than one who locks themselves out of a house in a rainstorm is condemned to get wet by the key they left inside. It was simply a natural byproduct of their own actions. Though God has continued to seek us and woo us back to him, though God has given us very clearly expressed guidelines regarding how he would have us choose to live (both in relationship with him and with one another), and though messenger after messenger has relayed God's warnings of the consequences of attempting to live completely apart from God, on the whole we have still chosen to each of us go our own way rather than to seek God as the ultimate sovereign in our lives.

You and I are free to submit to God' will, just as Adam was. But we also do not. We do not, because, those who give us birth are no longer righteous individuals. They are scarred by sin in their lives, their spiritual DNA has been changed. They cannot pass on to us a spiritual self that is a holy and righteous person as they were originally created by God. They have a disease called death, and it is in their blood, and through it they have passed it on to us and to every succeeding generation. But it wasn't God who chose it, and therefore it isn't God who condemns us with it. It is the consequence of what Adam and Eve chose for us. Sin came into the world because of what they did, and we are the inheritors of a bespoiled world because of that single act of disobedience, just as surely as my family was the inheritors of living in a new land because of the single act of moving across the mountains.

God could have set it right by starting over, but then you and I, the children of Adam and Eve wouldn't be here. So, he sets it right by sending Jesus to be a new (spiritual) Adam. And though we are not his biological children, we can become his spiritual children by faith. Faith, as used here is not belief about something, but belief in someone. It is a synonym for trust. So, we trust that in Christ God has done just what you Muslims say that God could do if he willed it, he could simply forgive us. We believe that this is exactly what he has done. He declares we are righteous, not because we really are by virtue of our own works. No, not at all by anything we have done. But we trust in what Christ has done, his work, and our belief in that work rstores our relationship with God once again, cancelling the affect of sin, and returning us to life with God for once again we recognize him as sovereign and submit our will to his.



---------------------------------------------------------
P.S. I think above you mean heresy, not hearsay.
(I only mention it because you've used that spelling a couple of times now and there is a word hearsay, but it has quite another meaning.)

 

[Imam]

My great-great...great-grandmother happened to be the first child of Eurpoean ancestory born west of the Applachian mountains. She was born in a mudhut near present day Danville, KY. And the rest of my family then lived in that area for the next several generations. Why? Because my great-great-great ... great-grandfather chose to move across the mountains. It wasn't a condemnation, it wasn't a penalty, but it was a consequence that was passed on to generation after generation based on the decision of one single person who had been their ancestor. Having crossed the mountians to live life on the wilderness frontier, there was no going back.

The wrong analogy in the wrong place !!!

The consequences of your great-great...great-grandmother settlement that was passed on to generation after generation have not the slightest similarities with Adam-s Original sin ...

first: the act of great-great...great-grandmother,crossing the mountains and living a life on the wilderness is not a sin to begin with..

second:in your analogy the consequence that was passed on to generation after generation ,was under their control and surely there was a chance for going back....just a horse or a camel or a car one could use to leave the wilderness...the consequence is truly under control and from the first generation ......unlike the case of Adam....


obviously your analogy is offtopic............

this anaolgy makes more sense:

My great-great...great-grandfather killed someone and the judge condemned him and his seed generation after generation to a life/time jail ....
the consequence(as you wish to call it) is truly out of their control and from the first generation ......

another one..

as if I were sitting at home one evening and the following occurred. The police came to my door and stated I was under arrest because my father in Europe just shot and killed someone. I responded by asking what that had to do with me and they said, "He's your father isn't he?"

the same with Adam

Romans 5:12 (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.

A conscious judgment was made by a supreme being that everyone should be adversely affected because of the deeds of one. That's a judgement in which punishment is being administered.


yet we read that God


Ezek. 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bearthe iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

The verse shows that every person should only be punished for those sins which he commits, not those of others.

 

[Grace Seeker]

You call all adverse effects punishment. I do not.

Sn does bring about adverse effects. Put it early enough in human history and it can adversely effect everyone of us. But that does not necessarily mean that those adverse effects are a punishment.