|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Original Sin | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5704 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
If you quote the passage in context you see that after Eve made that statement, the serpent made a counter argument, "You will not surely die." One could conclude this was the first time Eve was ever presented with a moral choice from the point of view of the benefits of eating the fruit. She then saw it as desireable for gaining wisdom.
Genesis 3:2, The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.
"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it...Gen 3:4-6 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8 No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Phatboy writes:
quote: Well I don't much like that explanation but it must have been a clever man who came up with it: "Well, yeah, I reckon I shud'na dun it, but 'is Eve's fault fer comin up wif the idear." I always thought that one the reasons Shakespeare's character Macbeth was so intriguing was because he never blamed Lady Macbeth for his own failings, even though he might have had more cause to do so than did Adam for blaming Eve. Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Well I don't much like that explanation but it must have been a clever man who came up with it: "Well, yeah, I reckon I shud'na dun it, but 'is Eve's fault fer comin up wif the idear." actually, adam doesn't blame eve. he blames god for putting eve there in the first place.
I always thought that one the reasons Shakespeare's character Macbeth was so intriguing was because he never blamed Lady Macbeth for his own failings, even though he might have had more cause to do so than did Adam for blaming Eve. probably, yes. lady macbeth, to use modern terminology, was quite the bitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
For instance, sin entered the world when Adam ate the fruit, not Eve. Eve did not sin *subject to debate, a more accurate interpretation would be she sinned, but did not cause sin to enter the world* because was decieved. Adam knew what he was doing and made the choice to eat the fruit. curiously, that's not right. the commandment not to eat of the tree is issued before she's created. but when the serpent confronts her, she seems to know about it, and quotes god. so she's presented with a moral choice. if she gets off, well, so i can if i say "devil made me do it." however, there is no indication that adam knew what he's doing. it simply says eve gave him the fruit, not that she told him what it was. maybe she put it in his dinner, and he had no idea. but the text never has adam being present with a choice. he just does what his wife tells him. you have to remember, adam is kind of stupid. he does afterall blame god for his sin.
The same concept applies to kids until they reach "that" age. well, we've been debating the whole immanuel prophesy in another thread. but that passage seems to indicate that according to tradition, there is an age at which kids know what the difference between right and wrong. however -- adam and eve wouldn't have until they ate from the tree. it is afterall called "knowledge of good and evil." they wouldn't have been able to make a moral choice until AFTER they ate. so by that definition, eating of the tree itself could not have been sin, because they wouldn't have known any better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Adam was not decieved, therefore he made the choice to disobey. those two don't line up. paul indicates that eve sinned, being decieved. you're saying the opposite. however, paul cannot be right either. adam and eve did the same thing, and had the same information. eve was "deceived" by the serpent, and adam by eve. paul is a sexist, please remember that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
If you quote the passage in context you see that after Eve made that statement, the serpent made a counter argument, "You will not surely die." One could conclude this was the first time Eve was ever presented with a moral choice from the point of view of the benefits of eating the fruit. She then saw it as desireable for gaining wisdom. how could she, or adam for that matter, make a moral choice without first knowing good and evil? the tree is the basis for morality. also, what's adam's excuse? we don't have him being presented any kind of argument at all. he just does what his wife tells him to, and eats. no fights, no discussion, no moral reasoning. maybe eve getting adam to eat was the sin, since she knew what she was doing after she ate. but then again, what about the serpent. isn't the first sin in the book his?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
The Tree is Ashtorah in Canaan, Ishtar in Babylonia, and to eat her fruit is to worship or have reverence for another deity.
This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-08-2005 09:16 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Arachnophilia
Arachnophilia writes: maybe eve getting adam to eat was the sin, since she knew what she was doing after she ate. but then again, what about the serpent. isn't the first sin in the book his? Why is god exempt from the responsability issue?After all it was an obviously premeditated situation as this verse indicates.
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. What purpose could the tree of the knowledge of good and evil serve in Eden?From this verse come questions.If Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before eating of the fruit then she is innocent of doing so.Now having eaten of the fruit why did she not realize that it would not be good to have Adam eat of the fruit?Did the fruit not give her knowledge of good in equal amounts as well? The serpent was created by god therefore the question comes forth how did the serpent acquire knowledge of good and evil? This situation is further complicated by the tree of life.
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever Why is there a problem with the tree of life? There was no injuction against eating it so what was it doing in Eden? What if Adam or Eve had partaken of the tree of life since it was not denied them? This also raises the question of what was the point of threatening Adam and Eve with death since this must have been the case anyway? Why were they not informed of the existence of the tree of life? God and whoever us is also posses knowledge of good and evil.Why are they not aware that it is just as evil to set up the conditions to tempt innocents{Adam and Eve before eating of the fruit} into commiting evil{which they were only aware of after the fact} using entities of their own device{the serpent who must have gained the knowledge of good and evil from them} to persuade the innocents to partake in something they could not know the consequences of beforehand?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 639 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Well, in the Jewish tradition, there is no original sin.
One of the typical interpretations is that Adam and Eve were set up. God created them innocent, and therefore were not responsible for their actions. However, God set them up, so they would know the difference between good and evil, and therefore learn to grow, and learn to be closer than god. Without the understanding of good and evil, Man would be no different than any other of the beasts in the garden. Not all Christians agree with the concept of Original Sin either. The concept was introduced into Christianity by St Augustine, based on his readings of Paul. An essay by Edward Oaks can be seen at this linkNovember 1998 | Print Edition | First Things
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
ramoss
However, God set them up, so they would know the difference between good and evil, and therefore learn to grow, and learn to be closer than god. How could they be set up to know the difference between good and evil if,in order to do so,they need to disobey god? Whether it is original sin is not the point.You cannot inflict a punishment upon those who are innocent before commiting the crime that allows them to know that they are indeed doing so.It is also immoral on the part of god to set the conditions in place that would permit such actions to take place at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Arachnophilia writes: Actually, God is the basis for morality. The tree was merely an exercise in choice. Adam walked with God. He may not have known much, or he may have been imparted with a lot of wisdom. One does not just walk with the Creator of the Universe without some impartation of some effect. how could she, or adam for that matter, make a moral choice without first knowing good and evil? the tree is the basis for morality.Arachnophilia writes: Part of the problem is that he listens to his wife rather than the original command not to mess with the tree. We do not know what Adam did and did not know. also, what's adam's excuse? we don't have him being presented any kind of argument at all. he just does what his wife tells him to, and eats. no fights, no discussion, no moral reasoning.Arachnophilia writes: OK. three choices. Blame Eve.(She had the fruit!) Blame Adam.(head of the family) Blame the serpant.(The devil made me do it.) Of course, we can always blame God for starting it all, but you can never win an argument against an absolute. Better to give in to that one...trying to win is showing the symptoms of original sin within yourself anyway..(ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil...) We as humans never will be as gods. We as humans never will figure out the answers to lifes deepest questions. maybe eve getting adam to eat was the sin, since she knew what she was doing after she ate. but then again, what about the serpent. isn't the first sin in the book his? Deny God as a reality if you wish....but your freedom is empty. Omnipotance is beyond our reach. Abshalom writes: The serpant had the spirit of rebellion which he passed on as a choice...the tree was the object of the choice. God may have allowed a freewill Lucifer to rebel and become Satan, but God never created Satan as rebellious. God may have allowed a freewill A&E the opportunity...the option of rebellion.. but God never made them decide. This clause in the contract cannot be argued by anyone except Adam or Eve. If any of us had a similar contract, we would have an opt out clause. The Tree is Ashtorah in Canaan, Ishtar in Babylonia, and to eat her fruit is to worship or have reverence for another deity.sidelined writes: Consider if no choice was ever allowed. No possibility of freedom to disobey could ever have been granted. God may have set up the whole scenario..yet He did allow an option out of it. How can we have the authority to judge God? What moral source do we have that trumps a Creator? What purpose could the tree of the knowledge of good and evil serve in Eden?Did the fruit not give her(Eve)knowledge of good in equal amounts as well? We do not know if the tree had any real power in and of itself or if it was a focal point and symbol of the choice between God and the serpant. There was Godwill, but it was not forced...it was merely the only known choice. The serpant allowed mind expansion into treewill, which represented a conscious choice of an unknown. One would think that Eve, having met God previously, would have some impartationof good. We do not know how well Gods personality was known by Adam and Eve prior to the tree incident. The similar choice exists today. Belief in a Creator, supported only by personal experience and an individual choice vs belief in human wisdom, freedom of thought, and an unknown result...(make your own minds up) sidelined writes: Lets speculate. The serpant knew only that God was in charge until he chose to rebel. Rebellion created an alternative reality...evil by definition is the absence of Godwill. Evil is the other cola. Evil is the reality that God need not exist within ones freethought realm. Evil is evil because nothing can compare to the original. The serpent was created by god therefore the question comes forth how did the serpent acquire knowledge of good and evil? This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-08-2005 23:39 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You could almost write another chapter of the Bible with the stuff you've made up in this post. I mean, it's fascinating, but entirely non-Biblical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I like to wing it. Biblical literalism is sooo predictable!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The Tree is Ashtorah in Canaan, Ishtar in Babylonia, and to eat her fruit is to worship or have reverence for another deity. that's an interesting take on it. some of genesis does seem to be slinging mud at other cultures' mythology. the bab-el story is evidence of that. maybe this bears relation the king adapa (of sumeria?), the origin of the name adam?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Why is god exempt from the responsability issue?After all it was an obviously premeditated situation as this verse indicates. because adam blames god and still gets punished. don't piss off god. lol.
What purpose could the tree of the knowledge of good and evil serve in Eden?From this verse come questions. to be eaten of, obviously.
If Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before eating of the fruit then she is innocent of doing so. i agree. i think the story is about the origin of morality, not sin.
Now having eaten of the fruit why did she not realize that it would not be good to have Adam eat of the fruit?Did the fruit not give her knowledge of good in equal amounts as well? maybe she realized that it would be good for adam to eat as well. or that god really intended for them to eat.
The serpent was created by god therefore the question comes forth how did the serpent acquire knowledge of good and evil? This situation is further complicated by the tree of life. we never have the command being given to the serpent. maybe he ate of the tree.
Why is there a problem with the tree of life? because it would allow men to become gods.
There was no injuction against eating it so what was it doing in Eden? because without morality and choice, man would just live for ever. kind of like the idea of angels. immortal, but subject to the will of god.
What if Adam or Eve had partaken of the tree of life since it was not denied them? then they would be gods.
This also raises the question of what was the point of threatening Adam and Eve with death since this must have been the case anyway? to scare them into not doing it, or at least taking it with grave consideration. before they ate,.there was no way god could have explained to them the intricacies of responsible moral freedom.
Why were they not informed of the existence of the tree of life? dunno.
God and whoever us is also posses knowledge of good and evil.Why are they not aware that it is just as evil to set up the conditions to tempt innocents{Adam and Eve before eating of the fruit} into commiting evil{which they were only aware of after the fact} using entities of their own device{the serpent who must have gained the knowledge of good and evil from them} to persuade the innocents to partake in something they could not know the consequences of beforehand? who said it's evil? don't trust christian dogma, it's usually wrong.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024