Original Sin

No conscience existed before the consumption of the fruit. Only the command not to consume the fruit. The consuption of the fruit resulted in the awakening of the conscience.

AbshalomThen the covenant did not exist plain and simple.

Therein lies the mystery of the tree of "the knowledge of good and evil."There are two views you can take about morality in relation to God:1. Good is good because God proclaimed it so.
2. Good is good in and of itself, and God is following goodness.Adam and Eve already had a conscience--you might say with one and only one law (don't eat of the fruit of that tree). This corresponds to #1.Or you might say that Adam and Eve had no conscience; it was the breaking of the Covenant that created the conscience. This corresponds to #2.The Calvinists, I think, thought that the story of the tree was meant to illustrate that it is both.

robinrohan Well #1 is out since it would not make sense to claim a consience since the bible does not make wiggle room for this and it would also mean they had an awareness of good and evil for which eating of the fruit of the tree would be a moot point.#2 would indicate good to be a quaity seperate from god which does not seem to square with what little I know of Christianity.

You are correct. In the Catholic Church, Baptism is the first sacrement that is received. They believe that this sacrement is nessessary in order to remove any remnants of the sin at the fall from an individual's soul. I think they view it like, at the fall, Adam and Eve were the only two humans in flesh form, but God already knew the souls of everyone who would ever receive a fleshly body on Earth. So when Adam Splashed for the first time in the puddle of sin, all the other souls were in close enough proximity to be splashed with a little sin mud as well.So the first sacrement is designed to wash away any residual "original sin mud" from the soul and it's done at infancy so if the child dies, he/she can go into heaven with a clean slate.I have way over simplified this and if I misrepresent the Catholic doctrine in my explanation, I sincerly apolgize.

Well, someone please clarify whether in Genesis 1, when God "saw that it was good" was recognizing a quality that preexisted creation of a "good" object, or God was simply declaring perceived goodness based upon His definition.

By no means. Their concept of good and evil was what God proclaimed.
Do not eat that fruit. That was good and evil for them. Some sects have proclaimed that #1 is correct.It's a very problematic issue, and some believe that this mysterious story about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil addresses this issue, for remember, God said they would die if they ate it.They didn't die.

robinrohan No that would be god's concept.They cannot have a sense of good and evil. That is why the serpent said their eyes would be opened.They were blind in this matter. This weighs favorably with the notion of the genesis verses being merely a story and not an actual event that transpires.

That question cannot be answered.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-11-2005 18:43 AM

But I will tell you what I think about this profound story--the story of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.It reminds me of the idea in the Medieval Jewish Kabbalah tradition--the idea of the Zimzum (withdrawal).Perhaps there were two withdrawals: (1) the withdrawal of God to make way for the physical world and (2)the withdrawal of God to make way for the moral world.The first bite of the apple was the beginning of the second Zimzum.

his own pride. like the architects of the tower of babel, he thought he could rule over the god of israel, and sit on a throne high enough to be a god on earth. not coincidentally, bab-el was in babylon, and nebuchaddnezzar failed at an attempt to rebuild it. what now do you think this verse is talking about?of course, most kings in mesopotamia, and other areas, WERE considered gods. pharoahs in egypt and chinese and japanese emporers were also. israel and judah were different, their kings were sons of god. (see psalm 2) i dunno, kings and chronicles seems more concerned with the presence of foriegn gods and idolatry than any devil.it's funny when we forget the literal readings for the "metaphorical" dogmatic ones. you a literalist phat?

was, yes. that statement was entirely grammatically correct. since jesus christ hasn't spoken or written anything in approximately the last 2000 years or so, i can say "christ was [a humanist philosopher]" with perfect accuracy. i made no implication of what he is doing today, if anything. no, of course not. jesus mows my lawn. no, seriously. there's been a lot more sitings of the yeti incarnate than the christ incarnate. lots of images of his mother on the sides of buildings and grilled cheese sandwiches though. not sure, but i suspect the answer is "no."

I am a literalist in terms of the fact that there is a literal spiritual war in human development. Of course I believe in God and that He has provided us with a way out---through acceptance of His son. As for a literal interpretation of all of the Bible, I am not.I DO think that the entire book is cohesive and points to the Messiah interacting with the Jews and, later, with humanity through His Spirit revealed to the apostle Paul who was specifically sent to the non-Jews.I DO NOT believe in the need or usefulness of a theocratic government. I believe that God is more concerned with our individual relationships with each other and with Him. For those who do not know Him, I believe that they are being drawn to freely choose or reject a loving yet absolute personal standard.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-12-2005 09:49 AM

it's odd that i am more of a literalist than most of the fundamentalists here.sorry, you can believe that if you like, but the bible doesn't say anything of the sort.

The various Christian sects seem to have different definitions for "Original Sin". It looks like the Catholic and the mainstream protestants feel that "Original Sin" is the stain that gets inherited
from your parents as a consequence of the disobediance of Adam and Eve.
This could go to the extreme of the Calvinists who think of man as totally depraved to a much milder version.Eastern orthodoxy is most like the the Jewish version in that 'sin' can not be inherited.Judaism does not think that 'sin' can be inherited. It views that man is essentially good. Sin in Judaism can is literally translated as 'missing the mark'.. (Or not doing as well as possible). It does not seem to have the 'stain' that accompanies much of Christianty when it comes to that concept.The Jewish religion does not believe in any inheritied sin what so ever. Instead, there is a dualism (probably taken from it's connection to Babalyonia) of two conflicting urges (two conflicting urges: the yetzer ha-tov (the urge to do good), and the yetzer ha-ra (the urge to do bad). It is not considered 'inherited sin'. Nor is it considered 'Original sin'.Now, the interpetation of Genesis 1 from the conservative and reform Jews is that God set up man on purpose, so he could learn the consequnces of his actions. Without knowledge of good and evil, there could be no free will, and ability to CHOOSE good, to lead a more sanctified life to become closer to God.