How human was Jesus/how much like Jesus are we

[Winman]

My interpretation gives no one any excuse.
It is not my interpretation, but the judgement that God through Jeremiah was pronouncing upon the nation of Israel. They were ripe for judgment because of their continual sin. They had not repented. They had not turned. The only way a person can change is by the grace of God. From birth they are born sinners, and that is what Jeremiah told them.
The Ethiopian was black from birth.
The leopard was spotted from birth.
They were evil from birth. It would take a miracle from God to change them.

Your interpretation makes God the author of sin. You believe God cursed man to be a sinner and that he has no choice but to sin, just as a leopard has no choice but to have spots, or an Ethiopian has no choice but to have dark skin.

You are directly blaming God for sin.

Why would Jeremiah condemn men for sinning if God cursed them to be sinners that could only sin? Absolutely nonsensical.

I see now that I am not debating with a rational person. Believe whatever you want.

 

[DHK]

Your interpretation makes God the author of sin. You believe God cursed man to be a sinner and that he has no choice but to sin, just as a leopard has no choice but to have spots, or an Ethiopian has no choice but to have dark skin.

The Lord is speaking to the nation of Israel, not Adam and Eve. All mankind has inherited a sin nature because of Adam's fall. Romans 5:12,19 clearly teaches. You deny these truths. God is not the author of evil. Adam's sin brought evil into the world. Jeremiah is not addressing this. He is addressing the nation of Israel.
Stay focused.

Therefore:
The nature of an Ethiopian is black; he is born that way.
The nature of a leopard is spotted; he is born that way.
The nature of a man is sinful; he is born that way--he inherited it from Adam.

You are directly blaming God for sin.

It comes from Adam.

Why would Jeremiah condemn men for sinning if God cursed them to be sinners that could only sin? Absolutely nonsensical.

God gave Adam a choice. He made the wrong one. That wrong choice affected the entire human race.
If a woman drinks too much while pregnant it will affect her child. He will be born with fetal alcohol syndrome. Just an example.

I see now that I am not debating with a rational person. Believe whatever you want.

Irrational? You stand outside historic orthodox Christianity--the position that Christianity has taken for 2,000 years, and you say that I am not rational?? You have some serious thinking to do!

 

[Winman]

The Lord is speaking to the nation of Israel, not Adam and Eve. All mankind has inherited a sin nature because of Adam's fall. Romans 5:12,19 clearly teaches. You deny these truths. God is not the author of evil. Adam's sin brought evil into the world. Jeremiah is not addressing this. He is addressing the nation of Israel.
Stay focused.

I am quite aware Jeremiah was addressing Israel. But he is not saying they were born evil. He is saying they are so accustomed to habitual sinning that it has almost become their very nature. As a leopard cannot change his spots, or an Ethiopian his skin, it is almost impossible for them to change their ways and do right works.

If your view is correct, then these Jews have the perfect excuse for sin. They can claim that they were born this way, and it would be absolutely true. This is the exact excuse homosexuals use to excuse their behavior, they claim they were born this way. And if your view is correct, they have a very valid and strong argument.

No, Jeremiah said they were accustomed to do sin. To become accustomed to something is to become used to something through continual practice. Very few people like the taste of alcohol the very first time they use it, but if they continue to drink they become accustomed to it. Most people cough and choke the first time they try cigarettes, but if they continue to smoke they become accustomed to it. This is what Jeremiah is saying of the Jews, they have sinned so much it has become a habit they can barely stop, like a drunkard or a smoker.

Therefore:
The nature of an Ethiopian is black; he is born that way.
The nature of a leopard is spotted; he is born that way.
The nature of a man is sinful; he is born that way--he inherited it from Adam.

It comes from Adam.

But WHY do men inherit a sin nature from Adam in your view? Because God cursed them to.

This curse makes no sense. We put criminals in jail or prison to prevent them from committing more crime and hurting people, but you believe God cursed all men for Adam's sin so that they would commit more sin and hurt more people. If God truly hates sin, this seems like a ridiculous thing to do. It seems more sensible that God would take away man's ability and will to do wrong.

God gave Adam a choice. He made the wrong one. That wrong choice affected the entire human race.
If a woman drinks too much while pregnant it will affect her child. He will be born with fetal alcohol syndrome. Just an example.

Irrational? You stand outside historic orthodox Christianity--the position that Christianity has taken for 2,000 years, and you say that I am not rational?? You have some serious thinking to do!

Adam's sin did result in all persons physically dying. That is actually a good thing, as dying is man's greatest incentive to repent and trust Jesus. But no where in the curse did God tell Adam that all his descendants would become wicked sinners whose nature would be to sin. There is not one word to this effect in the curse. You can't show it.

If God truly hates sin as he repeatedly says he does, then cursing Adam so that all his posterity would be born with a sin nature that drives them to sin is absolutely stupid. That would be like giving guns to criminals. The only people that stupid is the Obama administration.

 

[DHK]

I am quite aware Jeremiah was addressing Israel. But he is not saying they were born evil. He is saying they are so accustomed to habitual sinning that it has almost become their very nature. As a leopard cannot change his spots, or an Ethiopian his skin, it is almost impossible for them to change their ways and do right works.

It is as impossible for a man to do good in his unsaved state (apart from the grace of God), than it is for a leopard to change his spots. It always has been that way.
There is none good; no not one.
"Why callest thou me good? There is none good, but One."

If your view is correct, then these Jews have the perfect excuse for sin. They can claim that they were born this way, and it would be absolutely true. This is the exact excuse homosexuals use to excuse their behavior, they claim they were born this way. And if your view is correct, they have a very valid and strong argument.

We all have the perfect excuse to sin, and always have. It is our sin nature. Apart from the grace of God, we have no reason not to.
And he said: "This will I do...Eat, drink and be merry..."
This is what most unsaved men live for, and they do it in excess.

No, Jeremiah said they were accustomed to do sin. To become accustomed to something is to become used to something through continual practice. Very few people like the taste of alcohol the very first time they use it, but if they continue to drink they become accustomed to it. Most people cough and choke the first time they try cigarettes, but if they continue to smoke they become accustomed to it. This is what Jeremiah is saying of the Jews, they have sinned so much it has become a habit they can barely stop, like a drunkard or a smoker.

Jeremiah was giving an object lesson, not a science lesson. You don't understand this concept. The Bible is not a science text. He was not teaching the laws of Thermodynamics. He was teaching simple truths.
It was impossible for them to do good--as impossible as it was for an Ethiopian to change the color of his skin. That is the simple object lesson given. There is no science lesson here.

But WHY do men inherit a sin nature from Adam in your view? Because God cursed them to.

Because that is what the Word of God says. Take your argument up with God.

Romans 5:12 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:
--Adam sinned. Death was introduced into the world, and introduced to every man. The cause of death is sin. Every man is a sinner and consequently every infant, teen, adult will die. Age does not matter.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
--Adam sinned, and therefore all men are sinners. This truth cannot be stated any more clearly then it is right here. Why argue against it?

This curse makes no sense. We put criminals in jail or prison to prevent them from committing more crime and hurting people, but you believe God cursed all men for Adam's sin so that they would commit more sin and hurt more people. If God truly hates sin, this seems like a ridiculous thing to do. It seems more sensible that God would take away man's ability and will to do wrong.

What doesn't make sense with you makes sense to God, and that is all that counts. Why argue with God. You will never win.
In this post you are trying to tell God what he should do and what he should not do. You are very arrogant.

Adam's sin did result in all persons physically dying. That is actually a good thing, as dying is man's greatest incentive to repent and trust Jesus. But no where in the curse did God tell Adam that all his descendants would become wicked sinners whose nature would be to sin. There is not one word to this effect in the curse. You can't show it.

Adam died a spiritual death. God himself atoned for it when he took an animal and killed it. Blood was shed. Coats of skin were made from it for Adam and Eve.
In the day that Adam ate of the fruit of that tree, he died; not just 900 years later. It was a spiritual death--spiritual separation from God. With a blood-sacrifice God restored his fellowship.

If God truly hates sin as he repeatedly says he does, then cursing Adam so that all his posterity would be born with a sin nature that drives them to sin is absolutely stupid. That would be like giving guns to criminals. The only people that stupid is the Obama administration.

Now you are calling God stupid. Watch your language and your blasphemy!!

 

[percho]

God did not create Adam in his image and make Eve his help meet from him to send Adam and Eve to hell, death.

He created Adam in his own image to be the figure of the one to come. The manner by which that one to come would be through the help meet God made for Adam from Adam.

Adam was created in the flesh in order that he would have the lust of the flesh.

The purpose for the one to come of whom Adam was the figure was to;


A. Destroy him who has the power of Death/Hell.
B. Death and corruption is the main work of this one.
C. In doing A and B the sons of man would be redeemed from him who has the work of death.

This one is; The great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world:

He deceived Eve the help meet of Adam and Adam did the following.
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren. James 1:14-16

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (In the figure of Adam through the woman taken from Adam)

I believe the reaction of Adam was not a surprise to God.

I am not sure what the fulness of time means or why it was necessary.
I am not sure what the lust of Adam was nor how Eve was deceived to bring about the lust in Adam, which I think might have resulted in the fulness of time. A verse I find interesting relative to a man, a woman, and the Son of God, coming in the figure of Adam is this.

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Matthew 1:25


How human was Jesus?

I say all this to say God knows what each man will do. God will take care of doing the saving. We do not save our selves by our reaction to anything including Jesus. God will do the saving. Paul's reaction to Jesus was to kill and imprison those following Jesus. God saved Paul. Paul did not save himself.

 

[HankD]

But folks like Iconoclast teach that Paul taught the word "sinned" in both Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12 teaches that all men "actually" sinned with Adam in the garden. He has said this many times. Hank believes this as well concerning Romans 5:12.

Hi Winman, I'm back from my vacation/business trip.

The board is still at it I see.

Yes I said that one time in the background of the following passage:

Hebrews 7
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

At the time and always as well, my point is that little ones receive both the propensity and ability to commit sin from our progenitor and in fact do evil things but without having guilt reckoned to them.

God does not hold infants responsible for evil until they have an understanding of the evil they do. Only He knows when they fully mature and have borne the fruit of actual sin.

I use the analogy of a fruit tree which has not matured enough to bear fruit.

But a pear tree is still a pear tree even if it has not yet borne fruit.

Personally I don't like to label little children who have not the ability to discern between good and evil "sinners" because God does not hold them responsible for the evil they do (hit, lie, steal, have a tantrum, etc...) though technically they are sinners because it is inevitable that their evil will indeed mature into sin unless they die first or are retarded to the point that they will never know "good and evil" here on planet earth.

Evil is unlearned and universal in mankind, any parent knows that children need to be taught the "bad" concerning their evil deeds.

No parent has to teach their children to be selfish, hit, fight, lie - it comes naturally.
We spend (or should spend) a lot of time teaching them to refrain from doing their evil.

Having had a large family you might appreciate this Winman:

"Toddler's Rules"

TODDLER’S RULES
1- If I want it, it's mine
2- If it's in my hand, it's mine
3- If I can take it away from you, it's mine
4- If I had it a little while ago, it's mine
5- If it's mine, it must never appear to be yours in any way
6- If we are building something together, all the pieces are mine
7- If it just looks like mine, it's mine
8- If I think it's mine, it's mine
9- If I give it to you and change my mind later, it's mine
10- Once it's mine it will never belong to anyone else, no matter what

Author: Unknown

http://www.scrapbook.com/poems/doc/12550.html

HankD

 

[percho]

Hi Winman, I'm back from my vacation/business trip.

The board is still at it I see.

Yes I said that one time in the background of the following passage:

Hebrews 7
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

At the time and always as well, my point is that little ones receive both the propensity and ability to commit sin from our progenitor and in fact do evil things but without having guilt reckoned to them.

God does not hold infants responsible for evil until they have an understanding of the evil they do. Only He knows when they fully mature and have borne the fruit of actual sin.

I use the analogy of a fruit tree which has not matured enough to bear fruit.

But a pear tree is still a pear tree even if it has not yet borne fruit.

Personally I don't like to label little children who have not the ability to discern between good and evil "sinners" because God does not hold them responsible for the evil they do (hit, lie, steal, have a tantrum, etc...) though technically they are sinners because it is inevitable that their evil will indeed mature into sin unless they die first or are retarded to the point that they will never know "good and evil" here on planet earth.

Evil is unlearned and universal in mankind, any parent knows that children need to be taught the "bad" concerning their evil deeds.

No parent has to teach their children to be selfish, hit, fight, lie - it comes naturally.
We spend (or should spend) a lot of time teaching them to refrain from doing their evil.

Having had a large family you might appreciate this Winman:

http://www.scrapbook.com/poems/doc/12550.html

HankD

Hank, just a thought.

Did Jesus pay tithes, in Abraham, to Melchisedec?

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. Gal. 3:16

 

[Inspector Javert]

Hi Winman, I'm back from my vacation/business trip.

The board is still at it I see.

Yes I said that one time in the background of the following passage:

Hebrews 7
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

At the time and always as well, my point is that little ones receive both the propensity and ability to commit sin from our progenitor and in fact do evil things but without having guilt reckoned to them.

God does not hold infants responsible for evil until they have an understanding of the evil they do. Only He knows when they fully mature and have borne the fruit of actual sin.

I use the analogy of a fruit tree which has not matured enough to bear fruit.

But a pear tree is still a pear tree even if it has not yet borne fruit.

Personally I don't like to label little children who have not the ability to discern between good and evil "sinners" because God does not hold them responsible for the evil they do (hit, lie, steal, have a tantrum, etc...) though technically they are sinners because it is inevitable that their evil will indeed mature into sin unless they die first or are retarded to the point that they will never know "good and evil" here on planet earth.

Evil is unlearned and universal in mankind, any parent knows that children need to be taught the "bad" concerning their evil deeds.

No parent has to teach their children to be selfish, hit, fight, lie - it comes naturally.
We spend (or should spend) a lot of time teaching them to refrain from doing their evil.

Having had a large family you might appreciate this Winman:

http://www.scrapbook.com/poems/doc/12550.html

HankD

^^This^^ :thumbsup::applause:

 

[Winman]

Hi Winman, I'm back from my vacation/business trip.

The board is still at it I see.

Yes I said that one time in the background of the following passage:

Hebrews 7
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

At the time and always as well, my point is that little ones receive both the propensity and ability to commit sin from our progenitor and in fact do evil things but without having guilt reckoned to them.

God does not hold infants responsible for evil until they have an understanding of the evil they do. Only He knows when they fully mature and have borne the fruit of actual sin.

I use the analogy of a fruit tree which has not matured enough to bear fruit.

But a pear tree is still a pear tree even if it has not yet borne fruit.

Personally I don't like to label little children who have not the ability to discern between good and evil "sinners" because God does not hold them responsible for the evil they do (hit, lie, steal, have a tantrum, etc...) though technically they are sinners because it is inevitable that their evil will indeed mature into sin unless they die first or are retarded to the point that they will never know "good and evil" here on planet earth.

Evil is unlearned and universal in mankind, any parent knows that children need to be taught the "bad" concerning their evil deeds.

No parent has to teach their children to be selfish, hit, fight, lie - it comes naturally.
We spend (or should spend) a lot of time teaching them to refrain from doing their evil.

Having had a large family you might appreciate this Winman:

http://www.scrapbook.com/poems/doc/12550.html

HankD

Hank, I agree that all men are born "flesh", and that the flesh lusts against the spirit. The flesh simply wants to satisfy itself at all times.

But that does not equate to evil. When Jesus fasted 40 days, he was extremely hungry.

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

Hunger is a very powerful force. Men have been known to turn to cannibalism when they have not eaten like this for weeks. The scriptures say Jesus could be touched with the "feelings" of our infirmities. So, he surely felt tremendous hunger at this time. This is why Satan tempted him to turn stones into bread.

Mat 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

The point is, to have lust, even powerful lusts is not sin. Jesus surely was tempted for a moment to turn bread into stones, but he did not actually obey his lusts and obey Satan, and therefore did not sin.

I believe most people call temptation like this sin. You might find a wallet on the street full of money. This has actually happened to me twice. I will be honest, for a few minutes I considered that I could keep the money and no one would know. On the first occasion I really could have used the money, I was in a bad financial state at the time. But I knew it was wrong and that God would want me to find the owner and did.

Nevertheless, for a few minutes I was really tempted. Part of me really did want to keep that money. That is the flesh. The flesh wants satisfaction. But this was not sin. If I had kept the money, then it would be sin.

So, having lusts is not sin. Eve had lust in the garden before she sinned, she saw the tree was good for food (the lust of the flesh), that it was pleasant to the eyes (lust of the eyes), and that it was desired to make one wise (the pride of life). These are the tree worldly lusts found in 1 John 2:16, they are even in order as scripture shows.

Was Eve evil when she was tempted and experienced lust? NO. Eve was not evil until she actually disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit.

So having lusts is not sin. It is obeying your lusts when they would cause you to break God's laws that is sin.

If having lust is sin, then Jesus would have been a sinner, as he was tempted in ALL POINTS as we are, yet without sin.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin

Man's nature did not change when they ate the forbidden fruit, men already had lusts that tempted them to sin, it is directly shown in scripture.

And no sin nature is needed to sin, Adam and Eve were "very good" and yet they were able to sin.

 

[HankD]

Hi Winman, I agree with almost everything you said in your last post...

Except to add the "very good" ended with Adam.

Christ was slain from the foundation of the world because we were in "the loins" of Adam when he sinned.

This is why IMO the aorist tense is used in Romans 5:12 because it was a one time completed event in God's eyes.

The process of time was needed to allow death to pass through all of us because as Romans 5:12 states by one man sin entered the world; "all died", "all sinned".

I know you don't accept that and I agree that Adam did not have a sin nature until he saw, looked and ate and was changed from innocent to guilty.

Had God simply obliterated Adam that would have ended the human race then and there.

The choice now (unlike Adam's) is not between sin and death but death and the redeemed life.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.​

HankD​

 

[HankD]

Hank, just a thought.

Did Jesus pay tithes, in Abraham, to Melchisedec?

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. Gal. 3:16

Good question, He had no human father.

I don't know if that matters.

HankD

 

[Winman]

Hi Winman, I agree with almost everything you said in your last post...

Except to add the "very good" ended with Adam.

Christ was slain from the foundation of the world because we were in "the loins" of Adam when he sinned.

This is why IMO the aorist tense is used in Romans 5:12 because it was a one time completed event in God's eyes.

The process of time was needed to allow death to pass through all of us because as Romans 5:12 states by one man sin entered the world; "all died", "all sinned".

I know you don't accept that and I agree that Adam did not have a sin nature until he saw, looked and ate and was changed from innocent to guilty.

Had God simply obliterated Adam that would have ended the human race then and there.

The choice now (unlike Adam's) is not between sin and death but death and the redeemed life.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.​

HankD​

I do not believe we were all in Adam's loins as you do.

Lots of folks use Hebrews 7:9-10 to support this view

Heb 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.


Now if we take these verses literally, you have some real problems on your hand.

Are these verses about Adam? NO, the are about Levi being in the loins of Abraham.

Do these verses concern sinning? NO, they are about doing a good work, tithing.

If these verses are to be taken literally, then not only are we guilty for Adam's original sin, but we are also guilty for EVERY sin that Adam and ALL of our grandfathers have committed!

And not only are we guilty of ALL of the sins of ALL of our grandfathers, we also receive credit for ALL of the good works they have done!

So, if our great-great-grandfather believed in Jesus and went to heaven when he died, we receive credit for that and we will go to heaven as well!

But what about his son our great-grandfather who was an atheist? What happened to him? Did he go to hell for being an atheist, or did he receive credit for believing as his father did?

So, anybody that believes that we are imputed sin or good works because we were in the loins of our grandfathers has got some serious problems to explain.

As Ricky Ricardo said, You got a lot of splainin' to do, Lucy! :laugh:

So, this view is pretty ridiculous to say the least.

The writer of Hebrews was simply showing Jesus was superior to the Levitical priesthood, because his father Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec, the father also being considered superior to the son.

 

[DHK]

I do not believe we were all in Adam's loins as you do.

You don't believe you descended from Adam??
Which planet then???

 

[Inspector Javert]

You don't believe you descended from Adam??
Which planet then???

1.) That's not what he said:
He said he didn't believe we were "IN" them, as Hank does....as in, an being an active morally blameworthy co-participant:

That's a far cry from not believing that you are a descendent.

For example:
I'm a "descendent" of my Biological father...
I wasn't a moral co-participant in that certain attempted 2nd degree murder charge which occured long before my conception.

2.) Even if he didn't believe he was a descendent....
that doesn't require being from an altogether differing planet being the only alternative...

For example:
You are not a descendent of, nor were you in the "loins of" Shamoo or Shamoo's sire, but you are both from the same planet.

 

[DHK]

1.) That's not what he said:
He said he didn't believe we were "IN" them, as Hank does....as in, an being an active morally blameworthy co-participant:

That's a far cry from not believing that you are a descendent.

For example:
I'm a "descendent" of my Biological father...
I wasn't a moral co-participant in that certain attempted 2nd degree murder charge which occured long before my conception.

2.) Even if he didn't believe he was a descendent....
that doesn't require being from an altogether differing planet being the only alternative...

For example:
You are not a descendent of, nor were you in the "loins of" Shamoo or Shamoo's sire, but you are both from the same planet.

I won't argue that point with you.
However, we do know that we are all descendants from Adam. And that one thing is important to note.

Secondly:
Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
--It is quite apparent from Scripture that because of Adam's sin all were made sinners. We are born sinners because of Adam's sin. This is what Winman denies.
"By one man's disobedience many (all) were made sinners."
How?
It is passed down from one generation to the next, from one person (the male) to the next. It is not hard to figure this out. And the depravity of man or the sin nature of man has been a fundamental of the faith since the days of the apostles.

 

[DHK]

Winman,
Even the unsaved believe infants can be depraved.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-26887186

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/0...sted-for-attempted-murder-threatening-police/

A nine-month old baby in Pakistan has been charged for attempted murder. He has been finger-printed. His statement has been "recorded." And his trial has been put over until April 12. We are trusting that he will learn the words "not guilty" by that time.

 

[Inspector Javert]

From your link on FOX:

"Judge Rafaqat Ali first directed police to record the child’s statement, then when he realized his age, granted him bail and adjourned the case until April 12. The judge could not dismiss the case as it’s not under his jurisdiction.

Senior Superintendent of Police Rana Jabbar said there was a misunderstanding that led police to book the minor in the case. The assistant superintendent who filed the charges against the infant has been suspended."

I think the Pakistani judge realizes that the child cannot be held liable in this case....
The judge adjorned the case until the 12th...he didn't set a trial date...
He couldn't dismiss it because it isn't in his jurisdiction to do so.

The child is not going to be tried.
They know it's a child and not morally culpable.

Even if they did.............
It's Pakistan, for crying out loud......Pakistan.....

And if their Theology had anything to do with their Philosophy in such matters, then the child wouldn't be liable because Islam denies any doctrine of "Original Sin".

 

[HankD]

In Romans 5, there's is an undeniable connection between everyone of us and Adam's sin.

Call it what you will.

Personally I don't like the phrase "original sin" because the devil is the originator of sin. It started with him as recorded in Isaiah 14:12-15.

Also, it sounds too romish. No kind of sin ("original" or otherwise) can be washed away by water as the Church of Rome teaches, only the blood of Christ can (and indeed already has).

This kind of disagreement has historically led to violence and or bloodshed.

Modernly it ends up by folks on both sides of the issue chucking each other into the lake of fire (usually by innuendo).

James 3:6-10.

HankD

 

[Winman]

Winman,
Even the unsaved believe infants can be depraved.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-26887186

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/0...sted-for-attempted-murder-threatening-police/

A nine-month old baby in Pakistan has been charged for attempted murder. He has been finger-printed. His statement has been "recorded." And his trial has been put over until April 12. We are trusting that he will learn the words "not guilty" by that time.

Thank you for showing that news article, you have just demonstrated how ridiculous the doctrine of Original Sin is.



How does he kill his victims? Beat them to death with his bottle, or asphyxiate them with a dirty diaper? :laugh:

 

[Winman]

You don't believe you descended from Adam??
Which planet then???

Sure I do, and I believe Jesus descended from Adam as well. Jesus was made of the "seed" of David according to the "flesh", and David was a descendant of Adam.

But I don't believe I sinned in the garden with Adam. And I don't believe I participated in every sin all of my grandfathers committed, and I don't believe I participated in all the good things they did either.

If you are going to use this argument, you should be consistent, Hebrews 7:9-10 says that Levi paid tithes in his grandfather Abraham loins. Levi got credit for doing a truly good, religious work. If this view is correct, it does not apply to Adam's sin only, but ALL of our grandfather's sins. And their good works too!

If that is so, then every child and grandchild of a saved person would also be saved. At the same time, you would be guilty of unbelief for every grandfather that was not a believer. That is what you call a contradiction and cannot possibly be true.

It is a ridiculous view that no intelligent person could possibly believe. But we have some here that are still stuck in the superstitious Dark Ages.