As you probably know, some Christians think you were conceived in "original sin" because your parents had sex. However, Genesis explicity says that God instructed Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply."

Why would God have told the first humans to sin?

__________________

Original Sin is not because your parents had sex. While all humanity is corrupted by it until the next coming of Christ, it has nothing to do with your parents conceiving you. Original Sin is best described in Romans 5:12-21:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Original sin is not caused by parents having sex it was caused by Adam and eve (speaking figuratively of course i don't believe there was a garden and all that) and as a result of them breaking God's law the rest of the world is flawed.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

seriously, the concept of original sin is about adam and eve's disobedience toward god, which was not having sex, but rather eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

nice try though.

Which Christians are these?
It sounds like your making up a ludicrous doctrine, falsely attributing it to some group, and then trying to mock the group for holding to your imaginary doctrine.
That isn't very friendly.

Please note that this is purely a Christian notion - and did not exist in Judaism. Jews have no original sin and no personal salvation.

Since the messiah was supposed to be a military leader who would kick roman butt - and jesus definitely was not that sort of messiah - he had to be there to save something. Hence the development of the notion of original sin, needing salvation by Christ to save souls.

The idea that God would damn all humanity for the actions of Adam and Eve is quite repugnant in Jewish terms - and salvation is the salvation of God's creation.

__________________
And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, Jan. 29, 2007

I don't think i said it was a Jewish notion, but if i did please let me correct that. It is in no way Jewish, purely Christian as far as i know.

It's not that God damns all humanity. We made the mistake, we brought sin into the world. It is all on us. God solved the problem with the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

.. and if a dog created for dogfighting bites a person, the owner get fined. Which could bring up yet another discussion of original sin versus omnipotency/omniscience. That's where the theological failure is (but certainly not fiasco).

Anyhow, this thread should be put to rest since, in it's entirety, it was based on the fallacy that Dilettante described perfectly.

that is simply human reasoning... not very relevant to this discussion

the whole omnipotency thing is interesting. it is clear that apple from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is symbolic (given the title applied to the tree) before the eating of the tree, man knew only good per se, but eating from the tree was forbidden, which suggests that man cannot handle the knowledge of evil, for then he cannot stop himself from becoming evil.

Given how God is a righteous God who cannot tolerate sin, or evil, he therefore could not tolerate humanity, who received sin not because adam ate the fruit, but because he introduced the knowledge of sin to humanity, which we cannot resist.

That could certainly be a worthwhile discussion, but on another thread. I agree that this one should be put out of its misery. I think I'll start that process by unsubscribing to it....now.

HA HA HA, You know, I have studied the Bible, But I certainly had missed that question.

VERY GOOD.

But according to this doctrine, if the dog created for dogfighting had puppies, and you believed that animals could sin, the puppies would be "tainted" by original sin.

I can't help wondering whether the idea of original sin was first espoused just to justify the practice of baptism.

__________________

It's not so much omnipotency that makes nonsense of the notion of original sin. It's omniscience. I alluded to dogs bred for dogfighting because they are selected for particular traits. Thus, if he does his job correctly, the breeder will expect the dogs he breeds to be aggressive. In fact, not showing signs of the intended aggression is a failure in the breeding process.

Since humans are supposed to be the creation of a god, that god must not only have expected his creation to be able to commit what some individuals of the alleged creation later described as original sin but also that they actually committed it. In fact, not committing it would be a failure in the omniscience of the god. Ergo, the characters of the myth couldn't have done anything differently.

is it not possible that God knew humans would eat of the tree and gain knowledge of evil? it doesnt mean that they had to in order to prove God right, especially if God, in his omniscience, forsaw it happening.

your pupp dog analogy has logical flaws as well. how do we know that God didn't want humans to roam to their own free-will? God gave a commandment of what he didn't want, not what he wanted. in your dog case, the owner wanted a specific role to be fulfilled.

according to your criteria, you would call that a failure of omniscience, however, your criteria are a result of human reasoning, which for all we know could be severely flawed...

I think Augustine in his confessions best writes about original sin

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Ok... I don't really believe in original sin, but the OP made me lmao.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas