|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
iano writes: I mean, which one of us can know all the consequences for any decision we make - yet we are held accountable for the choices we make Well, this sounds like we are back to my Message 80 (which I think you missed):
Panda writes: Eve was told 2 conflicting pieces of information.Since she had no reason to doubt the 2nd informer, I see no reason for her not to act as if the 2nd piece of information was correct. Do you see a reason for Eve to [think] that the Serpent was lying?Do you see a reason for Eve to understand that serpents can lie? Do you see a reason for Eve to know what a lie is? I say: "No" to the above questions. What do you say? Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
iano writes: jar writes: got that from you. You made the claim that Adam and Eve should obey God. I'm pretty sure you won't be able to link to me claiming that. At least, not exegetically. Huh? I'm sorry but that just confuses me totally. Are you not arguing that the issue was that Adam and Eve disobeyed God?
iano writes: My point is that there is nothing in the story to suggest that either Adam or Eve could even have the concept that they should obey one critter over another until after they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil I agree. And so my questioning why you think disobedience requires such concepts since disobedience only requires you not following a persons direction? Huh? I'm sorry but exactly what is the difference between obeying one person over another and disobeying one person over another? How could either Adam or Eve choose who they should obey? Edited by jar, : fix grammar Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jar writes: I'm sorry but that just confuses me totally. Are you not arguing that the issue was that Adam and Eve disobeyed God? The issue isn't their disobeying God. The issue is your claim that they would have to have known not to disobey God in order to be in a position to disobey God. It's a claim which requires justification. Have you got one?
I'm sorry but exactly what is the difference between obeying one person over another and disobeying one person over another? A change in signage only. Obey A means disobey B. Obey B means disobey A.
How could either Adam or Eve choose who to obey? They could choose based on the percieved attractiveness of the consequences offered as they understood them to be. Avoiding death vs. being like God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
They could choose based on the percieved attractiveness of the consequences offered as they understood them to be. Avoiding death vs. being like God. A) do not eat from this tree you can eat from any other treeB) eat from this tree god does not want you to eat it cause you will become like him From the 2 arguments i would choose B if someone would have said do not eat from this tree cause you will die. Then i would choose to follow A whit all my knowlage of right and wrong that i supposedly got from those 2 eating the tree and whitout the knowlage i would die and the knowlage of what death is i would EAT the f% Apple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
iano writes: The issue isn't their disobeying God. The issue is your claim that they would have to have known not to disobey God in order to be in a position to disobey God. It's a claim which requires justification. Have you got one? No, I did not make such a claim. I said that they were not capable of deciding they should obey God rather than the serpent unless they had some capability to tell right from wrong.
iano writes: They could choose based on the percieved attractiveness of the consequences offered as they understood them to be. Avoiding death vs. being like God. Okay. And that is a valid reason. Or that the fruit is pleasant to eat. Both are very reasonable decisions and decisions that one might expect a child to make. And God did punish them as outlined in the curses, BUT the curses only had any value because they then did have the tools to know right from wrong and there is still no support there for Original Sin. The story in Genesis 2&3 is NOT about Original Sin as suggested in Romans 5 or of some Fall, but rather as I have pointed out many times, a "Just So Story" explaining why humans create a society based on the concept of right and wrong, why we fear snakes, why we farm instead of just being hunter gatherers, why childbirth seems more painful for humans than the other animals. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Panda writes: Well, this sounds like we are back to my Message 80 (which I think you missed): Sorry. I did.
Eve was told 2 conflicting pieces of information. Since she had no reason to doubt the 2nd informer, I see no reason for her not to act as if the 2nd piece of information was correct. Her reason for doubting the 2nd informer would stem from her doubting the 1st (which she would need to do in order to circumvent the contradiction and go with the 2nd). But if any informer can be wrong then all informers can be wrong - she'd have no reason to suppose the one more likely to be right than the other. -
Do you see a reason for Eve to [think] that the Serpent was lying? Do you see a reason for Eve to understand that serpents can lie? Do you see a reason for Eve to know what a lie is?I say: "No" to the above questions. Me too. And if you put "God" instead of "serpent" the same applies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Ringo 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? If "disobeying God" is a definition of sin then they sinned. That you add a moral element to the original consequential element for my sinning doesn't alter the definition being so. It's still disobeying God and so, still sin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Her reason for doubting the 2nd informer would stem from her doubting the 1st (which she would need to do in order to circumvent the contradiction and go with the 2nd).
Who says she doubts the first informer?Being wrong is very different to lying. If the Serpent corrects God's information then neither are necessarily being dishonest. For Eve to question the veracity of informer 2's information to the point of ignoring it, she would have to think he was lying or delusional. iano writes:
If Eve asked: "Are you sure?" and the serpent replied: "Yes. Completely." then she would be left with no other option that to think the Serpent correct (unless you think she could anticipate the Serpent being mad or immoral).
But if any informer can be wrong then all informers can be wrong - she'd have no reason to suppose the one more likely to be right than the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Because the God iano tries to market is evil.
Even though the God knows that Adam and Eve do not have the tools necessary to make an informed decisions the God places an attractive nuisance (the Tree itself) in the Garden, mentions it to make it significant, puts a tempter in the Garden and then punishes the kids and all their descendants for eating the fruit. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
Please see 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Panda writes: Who says she doubts the first informer?Being wrong is very different to lying. Doubting need not involve suspicion of lying. One could suspect a person of being wrong - like you say. Suffice to say she either doubts the first (and moves in direction 2) or doesn't doubt either party and sit's where she is with an unresolved contradiction. But if doubting the first ("the first could be wrong") then she'd immediately have reason to doubt the second ("if one can be wrong then so can two") You don't supply a reason to doubt the first and not the second. -
If the Serpent corrects God's information then neither are necessarily being dishonest. True. But how's she to know the Serpent is correct once doubt is permitted as a resolution of the contradiction? -
For Eve to question the veracity of informer 2's information to the point of ignoring it, she would have to think he was lying or delusional. Or mistaken. Just as she'd have to do with informer 1 -
If Eve asked: "Are you sure?" and the serpent replied: "Yes. Completely." then she would be left with no other option that to think the Serpent correct (unless you think she could anticipate the Serpent being mad or immoral). ..or mistaken, for all his self-assuredness. We can dance around Panda but nothing of substance has emerged so far: not in the serpent being the last to speak, not in the doubt raised. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Ringo writes: So the only way you can come up with "Original Sin" is by trivializing sin itself? I don't see the original sin as trivial. There were huge consequences arising from it. Then again, I'd be shy of supposing us the luxury of blaming it all on Adam.
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? Per definition, it has a "bad" connotation when arising from creatures made moral. For you, for me, for post-fall Adam, for post-fall Eve. Before that, it only can have consequential connotations - perceived as negative or positive. I wonder whether Adam and/or Eve were saved. No man comes to the Father except through Jesus .. afterall.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024