Wootah wrote:You will be judged on your actions and not for Adam and Eves or even mine. Where is it implied that we are judged by Adam and Eves actions? You could say that a Christian is a person that asks to be judged by Jesus's actions.
You're correct. I especially like the last part of the above quote. But I suspect that what Forged refers to is verses like Exodus 20:5. At least that's what I assume. There seems to be a tendency in this forum to accuse Christians (the Bible, etc.) of certain things without referencing what that accusation applies to. It comes off as hearsay. Regardless, I'll give my answer to verses like the one in Exodus.
I think the problem comes from a misunderstanding of "original sin". Many Christians reject the idea of original sin because they think exactly what Forged is talking about - that it's unfair to punish someone for what they didn't do (which it is). In rejecting a doctrine of original sin, however, they instantiate exactly the problem they're trying to solve. If there is no original sin, then Exodus 20:5 means God punishes people for something they didn't do, and he is being unfair. So then people have to write off those verses with comments like, "Well, that's the OT, Christianity is about the NT," etc. But pull out one thread and the whole thing unravels. It doesn't work. One must take the canon of scripture as a whole - not pick and choose the parts that sound good.
So what does original sin mean? It's like someone, person A, who fills a pail with drinking water and sets it on the ground for others to drink from. Along comes person B and dumps in some dirt. The next person who gets thirsty (person C) is not guilty of fouling the water, but must still drink the dirty water. Person C is not capable of separating the water from the dirt, and is forever drinking dirty water. Finally person A offers to provide pure water by distilling the dirty water.
But how do people react? They get angry at person A for calling their drinking water dirty. Or they get angry at person A for allowing the water to get dirty in the first place since they know how to distill water. They claim person B isn't responsible for the dirty water, but it's person A's responsibility because they set the pail on the ground in the first place. They should have put it somewhere else. Or when person A points out that the water is dirty, Person C thinks he is being blamed for drinking dirty water - that it's his fault for drinking from a pail that A offered when he has no other choice. Why must he now drink distilled water? Why can't person A just provide a new pail of clean water? He had the power to do it the first time.
Water is good. Dirt is good. Even mixing them is good (for plants). It's just not good for people to drink it. So all these "good" things don't become "evil" until one person puts other people in a position of using those good things in a way they were not intended. And maybe Person B didn't even intend "evil" when they dumped in the dirt. Maybe they didn't hear Person A say it was for drinking, and they intended it for the plants. Or maybe they had only ever drank grape juice and had only ever seen people dumping dirt into the water, not realizing people didn't drink it that way. Who knows.
But once the mistake is discovered, it becomes a blame shifting game - the same as what has been happening since Adam and Eve. The line is always, "It's not my fault." So, once again, we're into a discussion of how free we are to act when compared to God's power: theodicy. The "problem of evil" is a tough one - not an easy discussion to have. But let's at least acknowledge that as the heart of the matter and avoid getting tangled up in secondary issues like the doctrine of original sin. That doctrine explains verses like Exodus 20:5 just fine.
I apologize as I'll be gone next week, so I can't engage in a lengthy conversation, but I didn't want to let this go by. If the thread is still churning when I get back, I'll try to catch up.
) 