|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Importance of Original Sin | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The leg is that they did not have the capability to know that they should obey.
It is what the story is about, not some Fall but the great gift of the Knowledge that there is right and wrong. They could not willfully or knowingly disobey God.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes: The only reason you could have for supposing it other than true would be if Paul gave a hint that he thought it was? Correct. Why? Don't you see how silly that can get... I don't believe you'll stick to it, so I claim: Iano does not only reject false things because Paul hints they're true. The only way you can prove me wrong is by showing where Paul says otherwise., which he doesn't... So now you can't suppose my claim is other than true.
Paul's treatise on gospel mechanics is a sober stitching together of fact. Why would I suppose him suddenly inserting a mythical componant (which happens to work perfectly as far as gospel mechanics goes) to convey an idea for which no other working mechanism is posited? Two things: Just because someone mentions a fictional story does not mean they believe it actually happened. Or, maybe he did think it actually happened and he was just wrong about that. Although, I suppose you'd have a problem with Paul being wrong about something... who do think this guy is? God incarnate? What about Jesus? Shouldn't he be your man?
What about the fact that it couldn't have actually happened? A fact? Perhaps you mean a scientific fact? No, just a fact fact. The events in the story could not have actually happened as described.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jar writes: The leg is that they did not have the capability to know that they should obey. There is no 'should' element required in order that a person be deemed to have disobeyed. To disobey someone merely means not doing what someone tells you to do. ("Should" and the like find it's root in a knowledge of good and evil. They hadn't got a knowledge of good and evil at the time of choosing and so, weren't in the realm of should/should not)
They could not willfully or knowingly disobey God. Back to the drawing board you go. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Of course there is a "should" element, although it is possible that there is not with the god you market.
But that is why I don't worship that god or respect that god. The issue is that they did not have the capability to know that they should obey. You were the one that specified "willfully" and "knowingly" not I. Without the capability to know that they should choose one behavior over another they were incapable of doing wrong.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: Why? Don't you see how silly that can get... I don't believe you'll stick to it, so I claim: Iano does not only reject false things because Paul hints they're true. The only way you can prove me wrong is by showing where Paul says otherwise., which he doesn't... So now you can't suppose my claim is other than true. I thought I clarified my considering him to be speaking in factual terms. I have a positive reason to suppose adam & eve real - not just his omitting to mention that he was introducing myth. -
Two things: Just because someone mentions a fictional story does not mean they believe it actually happened. Or, maybe he did think it actually happened and he was just wrong about that. Although, I suppose you'd have a problem with Paul being wrong about something... who do think this guy is? God incarnate? What about Jesus? Shouldn't he be your man? Two things: Paul is writing factually (from his perspective). In laying out the detailed componants of the system and showing how they all fit together he won't go and throw in a mythical componant to fulfil a crucial function. Not without saying so. If he is wrong about this thing then he could be wrong about a lot of things. In which case chuck the book away. When you say Jesus is 'my man' surely you mean Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are my men - since I've only got what others record Jesus as saying. And so, must assume them correct too. Not that I see conflict between Paul and Jesus - but it's Paul who's tasked with deconstructing the gospel mechanism.- No, just a fact fact. The events in the story could not have actually happened as described. Go on.. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Of course there is a "should" element. I don't see that it's required. If a stranger instructs me to do something and I know nothing about him, there is no particular reason why I should or should not follow his instruction. If I don't obey his instruction I've disobeyed him. Or ignored his instruction if you prefer. -
You were the one that specified "willfully" and "knowingly" not I. Knowing you are disobeying and expressing your will unto disobeying don't require a should element. I knowingly and wilfully disobeyed the stranger above. -
Without the capability to know that they should choose one behavior over another they were incapable of doing wrong. I agree. But we're not talking about them doing wrong, we're talking about disobeying. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
We are talking about whether or not original sin is important in Christianity and my position is that its only importance is as a marketing tool and threat.
In you example the god you are marketing may well think that Adam and Eve disobeyed him but until they had the capability to know right from wrong god was of no higher standing than the serpent. They had every reason to "obey" the serpent. There simply was no way they could choose or even understand obey or disobey. Both were simply null concepts.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I thought I clarified my considering him to be speaking in factual terms. I have a positive reason to suppose adam & eve real - not just his omitting to mention that he was introducing myth. "Because otherwise I'd be wrong about this other thing" is not a good reason to suppose that something is true...
Two things: Paul is writing factually (from his perspective). In laying out the detailed componants of the system and showing how they all fit together he won't go and throw in a mythical componant to fulfil a crucial function. Not without saying so. How do you know? What makes you think you can speak for Paul? Maybe the people he was actually writing to understood that it was mythical already? You'll have to help me with the historical aspect of who the letter mentioning A&E was written to... If I was explaining to you the dichotomy between good and evil, and reference Darth Vader from Star Wars, I wouldn't feel the need to go: "Oh yeah, by the way, that shit never really happened". We all know Star Wars is a story.
If he is wrong about this thing then he could be wrong about a lot of things. In which case chuck the book away. That's the worst attitude ever... One little insignificant error, and your ready to shit on all of the wonderful things that are in the book. That's terrible, iano. You should be ashamed of that statement. All of the great truths that are in there, are true regardless of there being some parts that aren't factually correct. That you cannot accept those great turths as true without assuming that every single thing must also be true makes me feel sorry for you.
When you say Jesus is 'my man' surely you mean Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are my men - since I've only got what others record Jesus as saying. And so, must assume them correct too. Not what I meant, but whatever. You're practically worshiping Paul.
No, just a fact fact. The events in the story could not have actually happened as described. Go on.. A talking snake and magic fruit!? C'mon, it smacks of "fairytale". Too, Humans did not descend from one single pair of people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Jar writes: We are talking about whether or not original sin is important in Christianity and my position is that its only importance is as a marketing tool and threat. Certainly threat is an element and since the bible is full of it it does deserve a mention during 'marketing drives' -
In you example the god you are marketing may well think that Adam and Eve disobeyed him but until they had the capability to know right from wrong god was of no higher standing than the serpent. They had every reason to "obey" the serpent. Whilst they had no knowledge of right and wrong they had a knowledge of consequences. And consequences was the thing driving the choice made - not right and wrong. God promised negative consequences, the serpent promised positive consequences. They choose and got negative consequences. I don't see that the text can be forced to suggest they had more reason to choose this way than that way. -
There simply was no way they could choose or even understand obey or disobey. Both were simply null concepts. They could choose alright: gain (promised) positive vs. gain (promised) negative consequences offers choice. Unless you assume the choice was skewed to ensure a particular result. When disobey merely means not following an instruction and choosing necessitates not following one or other of the instructions given I don't see what there is to understand. Perhaps you could explain? You'll know your not following an instruction when you choose however. It's kind of obvious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: How do you know? What makes you think you can speak for Paul? I'm not claiming infallibility in this. But the internal evidence; the subject matter and 'flavour' of the writing (often described as 'forensic' such is the precision with which the argument is constructed) render a curve ball like this highly unlikely. It's be like dismantling a racing engine and finding a tennis ball fitted to the top of piston rod instead of a piston -
Maybe the people he was actually writing to understood that it was mythical already? You'll have to help me with the historical aspect of who the letter mentioning A&E was written to... Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. The book is written to the church in Rome. To Gentiles primarily.
If I was explaining to you the dichotomy between good and evil, and reference Darth Vader from Star Wars, I wouldn't feel the need to go: "Oh yeah, by the way, that shit never really happened". We all know Star Wars is a story. Romans is more like a car workshop manual. The gospel disassembled into componants so you can see how the whole thing works. It's breathtaking. This isn't a poetic, meandering treatise on good and evil. It's razorsharp.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Except of course they did not suffer the consequences that the god character in the story threatened.
And again, there is nothing in the story that even hints that they new of "consequences". And it still has nothing to do with sin or original sin.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jar writes: Except of course they did not suffer the consequences that the god character in the story threatened. It doesn't matter whether you agree that the negative consequences delivered on were the one's promised. It doesn't even matter were it that no consequences followed. What matters is that consequences were promised and that they understood consequences would follow. And choose.. -
And again, there is nothing in the story that even hints that they new of "consequences". Eve displays an understanding of a prohibition imposed by "surely die". She falters in the face of the temptation: "But God did say.." and the serpent has to counter her faltering. And they saw the fruit was desirable for gain. "If I do this I can obtain my desire" - a positive consequence. I don't know what brand of Christianity you're peddling but it would want to put all the pages it ripped out, back into it's bibble
And it still has nothing to do with sin or original sin. Um. When sin has earlier in the discussion been defined as humans disobeying God's instruction and they are the first to disobey God's instructions...*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'm not claiming infallibility in this. But the internal evidence; the subject matter and 'flavour' of the writing (often described as 'forensic' such is the precision with which the argument is constructed) render a curve ball like this highly unlikely. So we're talking about your opinion on this... I don't see it as unlikely as you're making it out to be. For example:
quote: "So it was written" as opposed to "So it was" leaves open the possibility that he was talking about a story that wasn't necessarily factual events.
Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. The book is written to the church in Rome. To Gentiles primarily. He also mentions Adam and Eve in a letter to Timothy in 1 Timothy 2:13... I don't know much about Timothy and whether or not they could've understood that the story was not about factual events. Do you think its possible? Still though, here we have Paul mentioning A&E after saying that women should STFU... Not much of a "timeless truth" there, so we can see that he is capable of error.
Romans is more like a car workshop manual. The gospel disassembled into componants so you can see how the whole thing works. It's breathtaking. Right, but if you find one little error anywhere in the book, then you're gonna throw all that away?
This isn't a poetic, meandering treatise on good and evil. It's razorsharp. Yeah, those stupid women thinking they should be allowed to talk From Message 84:
Whilst they had no knowledge of right and wrong they had a knowledge of consequences. And consequences was the thing driving the choice made - not right and wrong. Then sin is to be avoided because of the consequence? Rather than "seeking God", you're "avoiding unpleasantness"? You sure that's what Jesus would want? Love God is the first commandment... Oh, and how do we love God? By what we do to the least of his people. ** NIV is just the default version, do you have a preference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again, there is nothing in the story that implies they understood what "consequences" even mean and in this case, they made the right choice.
The consequences that did result was that they learned right from wrong. There is no way anyone can sin without first being able to decide between right and wrong. Dance all you want but there is still nothing in the Adam and Eve story to show that they were even capable of sinning until after they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the concept of Original Sun is still unimportant to Christianity, particularly as you try to market it..Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Unfortunately believing in God or Jesus doesn't change man's constitution. Quite the contrary. Believing into Christ makes at least one part of our being God, implanting the divine SEED of God's life into man's innermost spiritual being. It ADDS God into man's being as the "treasure in earthen vessels" .
"But we have this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us." (2 Cor. 4:7) "Everyone who has been begotten of God does not practice sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten of God." (1 John 3:9) This is a constitutional change within that the Christian must now learn to live by, live within, and live out. The implanting of the non-sinning divine seed of God's life is a constitutional change. Believing into Christ or receiving Christ does change a person. It adds God to that person. So to receive Him is to be given authority to become one of the children of God:
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name." (John 1:12) This becoming one of the children of God is a matter of a spiritual birth and begetting:
" ... to those who believe into His name, Who were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." ( vs.12b,13) To receive Him is to be a partaker in the divine nature:
" ... He has granted to us precious and exceedingly great promises that through these you might become partakers of the divine nature ..." (2 Peter. 1:4a) To receive Him is to be regenerated through and incorruptible seed of divine life. These are not just words for the humanist to insert his concept of self improvement:
"Having been regenerated not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible through the living and abiding word of God." (1 Peter 1:23) And this being regenerated through a incorruptible seed is to be regenerated unto a living hope. For it is to receive a LIVING Person within your innermost being:
" ... according to His great mercy has regenerated us unto a living hope ..." ( 1 Peter 1:3) The power of this regeneration is through the resurrection of Christ from the dead:
" ... has regenerated us unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (v.3c) The receive Christ then is to become a duplication of His life - ie. God living in man:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it abides alone; but if it dies it bears much fruit." (John 12:24) To believe into Him is to receive the Holy Spirit of God as a pledge stamped within:
" ... in Him also believing, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of the promise, Who is the pledge of our inheritance ..." (Eph. 1:14a) "He who has also sealed us and given the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge." ( 2 Cor. 1:22) "Now He who has wrought us for this very thing is God, who has given to us the Spirit as a pledge." ( 2 Cor. 5:5) And the constutional change is effected by Christ and His Father coming to dwell within the believers:
" ... If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him; and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23) All of this imparting of the Person of Christ and regeneration through the Triune God is according to the Old Testament prophecy of a new covenant effecting God writing His laws in man's heart and inscribing them in man's being:
"For this is the covenant which I will covenant with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will impart My laws into their mind, and on their hearts I will inscribe them; and I will be God to them, and they will be a people to Me. And they shall by no means each teach his fellow citizen and each his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for all will know Me from the little one to the great one among them." (See Hebrews 8:10,11 compare Jeremiah 31:31-34) This is barely scratching the surface of the constitutional change within the participants in the new covenant. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024