04 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderIF human nature is inherently "base" or "evil" and IF from the moment of conception a fully human entity exists, than that entity must be capable of sin as it is by nature sinful.
IF human nature is inherently "base" or "evil" and IF from the moment of conception a fully human entity exists, than that entity must be capable of sin as it is by nature sinful.
EDIT: According to Luther and Calvin according to Wikipedia:
The notions of original sin as interpreted by Augustine of Hippo were affirmed by Protestant Reformers Ma ...[text shortened]... your basic sinful nature or "total depravity" would exist even before you do in KellyJayology.
Sure, that is where the age of accountability comes in... if you are not mentally or morally conscious of your sin, would God punish you for it?
04 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseI thought hell wasn't a punishment but rather a necessary separation from God since sin cannot be in his presence. Can sin be in God's presence as long as the sinner is unaware of his sin?
if you are not mentally or morally conscious of your sin, would God punish you for it?
04 Nov 05
Originally posted by telerionSo then does the Bible not mean "all"...
So then does the Bible not mean "all" when it says "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"?
Does "all" mean "all of some people but definitely not all people"?
Edit: Conjectures about the "age of accountability" as it is often called always seem extra-Biblical and essentially a disguised argument over what that xian would do is (s)he were God. Basically, I think it boils down to comparing mental idols.
Paul is presenting his case that there is noone who has not sinned. If this "all" is to mean "all accountable", I cannot say for sure.
04 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseWhy not? Since when does the Christian God play by the same rules of logic and fairness that humans do? Your position here is inconsistent with your assertions elsewhere that there is a human being from conception; IF there is such a human being and IF there is "original sin" then this "person" is in a state of sin whether "he" is aware of it or not. And in KellyJayology we are all in such a state even before we exist.
[b]IF human nature is inherently "base" or "evil" and IF from the moment of conception a fully human entity exists, than that entity must be capable of sin as it is by nature sinful.
Sure, that is where the age of accountability comes in... if you are not mentally or morally conscious of your sin, would God punish you for it?[/b]
EDIT: And if RBHILL and others are correct and you have to be "Born Again" to be saved, a fetus is doubly screwed as it hasn't even been born ONCE, never mind AGAIN.
04 Nov 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI consider sin to be a deliberate violation of God's moral law, so obstrusively it can't be sin when you are not morally accountable.
I thought hell wasn't a punishment but rather a necessary separation from God since sin cannot be in his presence. Can sin be in God's presence as long as the sinner is unaware of his sin?
04 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderMy contention is that the fetus is innocent until it is cognitively capable of understanding is actions. It is not a case of it being inhuman, but merely innocent in its humanity. It may be concieved into sin, but it is not yet accountable.
Why not? Since when does the Christian God play by the same rules of logic and fairness that humans do? Your position here is inconsistent with your assertions elsewhere that there is a human being from conception; IF there is such a human being and IF there is "original sin" then this "person" is in a state of sin whether "he" is aware of it or no ...[text shortened]... in" to be saved, a fetus is doubly screwed as it hasn't even been born ONCE, never mind AGAIN.
04 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseIF you don't believe in original sin, say so.
My contention is that the fetus is innocent until it is cognitively capable of understanding is actions. It is not a case of it being inhuman, but merely innocent in its humanity. It may be concieved into sin, but it is not yet accountable.
IF you don't believe that a fetus is a full human being, say so.
But unless you accept either of the premises above, the concept of original sin is that ALL humans are born/conceived with the Adamic guilt upon them. ALL humans have a base, vile nature and ALL will sin. Thus, your concept of an "age of accountability" is an artificial construct to get around the logical implication of the doctrine of original sin. It is an appeal to "that's not fair, so God wouldn't do it". Yet, OT God does many things that are seemingly grossly unfair, including killing children. I guess asking for logical consistency from a Christian is like trying to pass a camel through the eye of a needle.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
04 Nov 05
1 edit
I believe the answer is yes, a fetus is born with a sinful nature. But if the point you are trying to make which I suspect is, does this fetus go to hell, then I would say no. It would not because the fetus is incapable of sinning on its own. In this case the fetus is sanctified by the parents.
1 Cor 7:14
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
(KJV)
In any event, even if both parents are unbelievers, then the fetus would be judged, and my guess is God would judge favorably since He is loving and kind.
05 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseHal, you've been reading too many ID/YEC's. Now I see that I did use the word "born," but that was clearly only as a lead into the real discussion, which is about conception (or perhaps pre-conception). I have no interest in the birth aspect, I was simply hinting at yet another inconsistency in xian's ideas.
Check your first post, you said: "For those xians who believe that we are all born with original sin (and there are many who do)"
06 Nov 05
Originally posted by telerionIt was quite dumb of me not to remember the title of the thread...😳
Hal, you've been reading too many ID/YEC's. Now I see that I did use the word "born," but that was clearly only as a lead into the real discussion, which is about conception (or perhaps pre-conception). I have no interest in the birth aspect, I was simply hinting at yet another inconsistency in xian's ideas.