Any time Danny. I would love to shoot the breeze with you in person.DannyM wrote:Do you know what Byblos, that's a lovely thing for you to suggest and next time I'm over I will pre warn you and take you up on lunch. We could put the world to rightsByblos wrote:Not a problem Danny. How was your trip to NY? You should have told me you were going to be in my neck of the woods. We could've done lunch or something. Were you in NYC at all?)
Throughout the OT God makes it clear that punishment can befall a person's descendants to the second and third generation or more. There is a clear delineation of the penalty for disobedience or sin to the lineage of the person committing the offense. God is just and fair. Why on earth would he punish people who are completely unrelated to the transgressor? Think of it this way, Adam and Eve were given a special grace, which they could have passed on to their descendants, but lost it instead so their descendants could not inherit it (and therefore are fallen). Also, look at what Genesis 3:1-24, where due to Adam and Eve's sin they would now have to work to live, be at war with nature, and suffer from pain and sickness. Why would non-adamic people lose that special grace or suffer all these punishments as well? Does that seem fair or even logical to you?DannyM wrote:I absolutely agree that sin was brought into the world through Adam's disobedience. Where I differ is that this in no way, nor is it suggested, that this has to be restricted to Adam's lineage. If you think about it, it would be ridiculous for Adam's transgression NOT to apply to all existent people. WEhy is God not God of all existence? Because God, for our benefit, focuses on Eve and Adam, does not mean that he had no dealings or no concern with others.Byblos wrote:Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're saying Danny. The traditional orthodox Christian position is that sin was propagated to humanity through Adam's lineage. If there are other lineages, please explain the precise mechanism by which sin was propagated to them then. If not by birth, then by what?)
Also please look at how Paul deals with the subject of original sin in Romans 5:12-19 and in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22.
It became prototypical with new generations, it didn't start out as prototypical. A clear case of eisogesis. But let's look at what one of the early church fathers had to say on the subject:DannyM wrote:I have no real argument here, Byblos, just on your "absence of evidence" comment. I do know the rule - I have had to point it out to many atheists - but I am not starting from this premise; my premise is the text itself and what it suggests. I take your earlier mention of two siblings at war among a siblinghood of 6. But the story of Cain and Abel, to me, points to a classic (indeed, I think this is the prototypical elder son resenting the newnorn) elder brother and newborn feud, a resentment from Cain of the next born Abel. I simply see no room for other siblings inserted between this hot jealously that Cain carries for Abel, who has intruded on his position.Byblos wrote:Perhaps, maybe we should take his words exactly for what they are, considering he says 'all nations'. And what evidence is that you speak of? The fact that no siblings are mentioned? I'm sure you know the rule, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If the text says all descended from Adam and Eve, and it doesn't mention siblings between Cain and Abel, yet Abel had himself a wife, it's a not a far leap to surmise he married a sister. It's a gigantic leap to invent a whole new race because of it and insert that back into the text. Just out of curiosity, what it is about that you find objectionable? As it seems your entire position is built around the objection to Abel marrying his sister.)
In the City of God (XV.16):
Augustine wrote:As, therefore, the human race, subsequently to the first marriage of the man who was made of dust, and his wife who was made out of his side, required the union of males and females in order that it might multiply, and as there were no human beings except those who had been born of these two, men took their sisters for wives,—an act which was as certainly dictated by necessity in these ancient days as afterwards it was condemned by the prohibitions of religion . . . and though it was quite allowable in the earliest ages of the human race to marry one's sister, it is now abhorred as a thing which no circumstances could justify.
Thanks for the clarification, and I look forward to the new thread.DannyM wrote:No I don't mind at all, Byblos. I am a Protestant, always have been, but I prefer to look at Christianity from a neutral position. My problem with Roaman Catholicism is just the usual issue about hierarchy, Papism, and most of all how they use scripture to invent bogus orthodoxy. I have many criticisms too for the church of England, so this is not sectrian influenced, just dismay. But I think I'll cover this in the "orthodoxy" thread.Byblos wrote:Not sure exactly what you mean here, is there a typo? Are you a former Catholic? If yes, how far did you delve into Catholicism before deciding to convert? (if you don't mind me asking).)
I'm trying, I really am .DannyM wrote:I quite agree. Well said, Byblos. Perhaps you'll convince me of your position. I'm open to persuasion...honestByblos wrote:Why would it go away? We're having a civilized discussion, and I don't anticipate either of us will be convinced of the other's position. These types of discussions generally serve those who sit on the fence of a particular issue but seldom serve to sway the hardened souls. Hmm, if only we had a supreme court of sorts that can settle such disputes!