Alpha wrote:In Christianity, God offers salvation not by the person who first comimitted the sin, but by the same being. Meaning, since a human has caused sin, a human shall pay for it (Refer to Romans 5). The fact that Adam was not crucified and a blameless Jesus was, just shows God's grace towards the world. It also shows God's holiness, meaning He will not allow a sinner to offer redemption. Also, God's ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9). You are trying to put some kind of a human twist in a salvation method, but God thinks otherwise.
I agree with salvation being God's grace. What I don't agree with is that we (as well as our sin) are products of other individuals. If I am responsible for my salvation then I am the sinner, initially. Now, my initial sin that caused me to fall made be susceptible to the perpetuation of Adam and Eve's sin in human society. So I do understand how their sin has affected me, but still I do not accept that they are responsible for my being prone to suffer the after-effects of their sin in the first place. I sinned and that caused Adam and Eve's sin to affect me. That is how I accept it because I do not believe that the spirit-soul begins it's existence at the birth of the flesh-body. The materialists/atheists believe that the life (soul) begins as a product of material arrangement. So when I see a religion that believes similar it seems like a symptom of atheism.
Alpha wrote:Jivatma wrote:So my question is, why didn't Jesus condemn the implication of this question? How could this person have sinned before he was born if he didn't exist until he was born?
Nice question. Maybe Christ did condemn the implication of the question by giving the answer:
"Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents" then concluded with an answer specifically pertaining to the blind man:
"but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." If you are then saying what is the reason for others that are suffering, then Jesus gets rid of the option (as a general idea) His desciples suggested when asking the question:
Perhaps, but this is vague. And this is also a special case, for not all blind men are healed.
Alpha wrote:There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish...." (Luke 13:1-3). A second example is given in the passages after. Not all the time is the suffering of a specific person a result of the sin sowed from that specific person. Hence, if another blind man was born blind, his personal sin (even if you some how imply it to be before his birth), does not necessarily result in him becoming blind. Rather, the punishment was initialized in Eden on sin in general. (I am not God, so I cannot give you the reason why God did it this way, however I can speculate on a number of reasons why God would do it this way just like any other Christian can).
That verse only shows how all sin is equal in the eyes of God. As far as salvation is concerned, we either have it or we don't, correct? So one type of sin is just as condemning as another type of sin. Would you not agree? It is in this context that I understand what Jesus is saying.