|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
That looks to me like a case of a false premise producing a questionable conclusion. We know that death is the penalty for sin? No, we don't know any such thing. Death is a natural consequence of life. Yet they died anyway, and we know that death is the penalty for sin. So why did they die? The Garden of Eden story is pretty vague about the Tree of Life. Pauls attempt to reason from the vague to the specific isn't very convincing. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
Of course. I was simply suggesting that Paul's reasoning was flawed. If you agreed with him, your reasoning would be flawed too. Remember, I was summarizing Paul's argument. Whether or not you or I agree with his argument is irrelevant. (Paul had already pointed out in Romans 2 that Gentiles keep the law by nature much as people did before "the law" was given to Moses. I think his point may have been more about everybody having the knowledge of good and evil rather than "inheriting" sin from Adam.) "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
Not at all. One man's unsupported opinion doesn't constitute "Biblical support". What Paul teaches is not necessarily equivalent to what has Biblical support. So if Paul teaches the concept in Rom 5, the answer to this question must be "yes", whether we agree with Paul's reasoning or not. I'm sure we could find a lot of opinions in the Bible that are just plain wrong. You can't count all of them as Biblically supported just because they're mentioned. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
You're playing fast and loose with your definitions. "Support" generally implies two components: that which is supported and that which provides the support. The concept of "self-supported" has no more value than the concept of "self-evident". Any teaching of any biblical author has biblical support, by definition. If there is any other support besides the skyhook of Romans 5, please show it. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
And yet he didn't seem to think the serpent was "evil". If he did know that the serpent was more shrewd than the other animals, he didn't take that to be a bad thing. He either didn't know, or didn't believe that the serpent was giving bad advice. The "naming" suggests that Adam knew something about the nature of the serpent. The serpent let the cat out of the bag:
quote:and God later confirmed that the serpent was right: quote:It's hard to understand how anybody could consider becoming more like God a "fall" or a "sin". "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
iano writes:
God did acknowledge later on that the serpent was right:
quote:Direct contradiction without accomodation. Directly on a par with Colin saying that Alice knew that the old staircase was safe but choose to say otherwise. quote:It's the equivalent of Alice acknowleging that she was wrong/mistaken/lying. Edited by ringo, : Soelling. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
You only addressed half of what I said. How can becoming more like God be considered a "fall"? ringo writes:
The sin wasn't becoming more like God. The sin was the direct disobedience of God, and the desire to make oneself like God (c.f. Is 14:12-17). It's hard to understand how anybody could consider becoming more like God a "fall" or a "sin". "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
So there was no "fall". Good. That's a start. ringo writes:
I have not claimed this. I don't see where the text implies it. You only addressed half of what I said. How can becoming more like God be considered a "fall"? The next obvious question is: How can an action that makes one better - i.e. more God like - be considered a sin? How can a desire to be better be a sin? "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
So you agree that becoming more like God was a good thing but you still claim that Adam and Eve became more like God by sinning? To rephrase and clarify: I have not claimed, nor do I see where the text (either Genesis or Romans) implies that becoming more like God is considered to be a "fall" or a "sin". "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
iano writes:
Isn't that the point? How were Adam and Eve supposed to know they should obey God? Where did you get the notion that God or the serpent were seen as authority figures? "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
iano writes:
Again, isn't that the point? Without a "should-element", how can there be any sin? They used their free will, which they were entitled to do, and they accepted the consequences. Where's the sin? There is no need to introduce a should-element to a decision involving only consequences. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
iano writes:
So the only way you can come up with "Original Sin" is by trivializing sin itself? If sin is nothing but disobeying God's whim, if it has no "bad" connotation in and of itself, why would we be concerned with sin at all? If "disobeying God" is a definition of sin then they sinned. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
iano writes:
Your reasoning seems circular. You're assuming that there was a sin committed in the Garden of Eden and then you're attributing consequences to that sin. I'm saying that if anything Adam and Eve did in the story was a "sin", then sin is trivial.
I don't see the original sin as trivial. There were huge consequences arising from it. iano writes:
According to the story, Adam and Eve were "made moral" by eating the fruit. How can you retroactively charge them with sin when the act was what made them capable of sin? Per definition, it has a "bad" connotation when arising from creatures made moral. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
Acquiring the knowledge of Good and Evil made them more like God. How can becoming more like God be a sin? How can the desire to be more like God be a sin? ringo writes:
Please see Re: Free Willy (Message 81), which might be a partial answer. But I'm not quite sure what you are trying to ask? So you agree that becoming more like God was a good thing but you still claim that Adam and Eve became more like God by sinning? "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
iano writes:
That's how you defined it. I'm saying that that's a silly definition that trivializes sin. Sin has to have more to it than just disobedience of God's whims or it has no meaning. Nobody was hurt (with the possible exception of Adam and Eve), so I don't see how it was a sin. Wasn't sin previously defined as disobeying God (whether or not a moral element was attaching)? "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024