As a young fellow I once heard a good Adventist pastor contend that we don’t become sinners from sinning but that we sin because we are sinners. Now for many reasons I loved this particular ideology but as I think about it this doctrine raises some questions which really need to be answered.
First let us define a sinner. The operational definition of a sinner from my study is as follows. It is an individual who upon knowing what the good is chooses the evil any how. This is why Adam and Eve can be counted as sinners now in spite of their former sinlessness. They knew the score and yet they chose sin anyhow. The dictionary definition of sin is also helpful. It is simply a person who has sinned.
So to the questions.
- Why did Adam and Eve sin? Did they become sinners through sinning or were they already sinners?
- If they were already sinners then does that mean it is impossible for God to create beings that are already sinless?
- Why did the Devil and his host of minions sin? Did they not start from a default condition of sinlessness?
- Paul tells the Athenians on Mars Hill [Act 17:30 KJV] And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: If I read this correctly God only holds us accountable for that which we do know while holding us innocent for that which we do not know. For this reason we safely regarding children as being regarded innocent by God until they reach the of accountability. So at what point have children become sinners?
- If children are sinners at birth what sin did they commit?
Now consider the following. By their fruits ye shall know them. What spiritual fruits do we observe in the lives of those who hold to the doctrine of original sin? Many years ago in discussion with a Melanesian gentleman from the Solomon Islands, he observed that Adventists were the only ones who showed a change in lifestyle once they chose to become Adventists. He noted that all other Christians stayed in the same lifestyle even after accepting their brand of Christianity. One atheist gentleman once challenged him asking him what possible benefit Christianity could be. “For starters you’re not on my dinner menu” was the response harking back to his cannibalistic heritage. Oh yes he had a dry sense of humour.
In the original sin doctrine a person will keep sinning for the rest of their life. This obviously must include the time after the period of probation has closed when there will be no intercessor. It would appear to me that the doctrine of original sin is going to damn many to hell because of the fact that they will sin after probation closes.
Your comments are invited.
One of the things red pill men will encounter in arguing against feminists and their enablers is a whole toolkit of shaming tactics that are employed to try and stop the arguments. These femtards do not want the truth of what they are saying to try to come out. If anything the fact that they are using this kind of strategy to stop the argument should tell you something about them. That is the fact that they regard the flinging of shame and name calling to be an effective tactic means that returning fire upon them will have a much more devastating effect.
The silencers are by nature herd creatures. They need to feel part of the in group to be able to believe that their arguments are effective. Your strategy is to find ways to separate them out from the herd. For more information take a look at http://www.anonymousconservative.com/.
The reason I say part 1 is that the silencing/shaming tactics are many so it will be useful to develop a toolkit over time. I often have thoughts on how to deal with these underhanded tactics and believe that lovers of truth should be given the tools to send these silencers packing.
So lets deal with the first silencing tactic. This one is especially common in the Christian community. Suppose you say something negative against a person or a group of people regarding their behaviour. We’ll take the favourite whipping boy of Christians in general i.e. homosexuality as an example.
FM(Father Marker) “Don’t you know that homosexuals will never go into the kingdom?”
LC(Liberal Christian) “You shouldn’t be judgemental”.
FM “Are you saying that I’m being judgemental?”
LC “Yes I am”
FM “Are you serious about that?”
LC “Indeed I am”
FM “So please explain to me how you’re allowed to judge that I’m judgemental but I’m not allowed to be judgemental.”
At this point they may denial that they have indulged in any kind of judgementalism of their own in which case you can ask them how they managed to determine that you were being judgemental without using some kind of standard against which to judge that you were being judgemental. Lets face it the accuser of judgementalism is being just as judgemental as the person they are accusing.
The reason that you continue to question the seriousness of their claim is that libtards have developed a new strategy once you corner them. i.e. deny the seriousness of their claim by trying to claim that they were only joking. It is a lot more difficult to back out of a claim of only joking when you have caused them to assert the seriousness of the viewpoint that they have utter. However even if they are able to back out of their claim through the “only joking” path that presents them with a new difficulty. If they ever try to do that your immediate response is to question them by asking them “So if you’re joking as you are now claiming then how can I take seriously anything else you say in dialogue?”