Bible Question: What was the First Sin?

Then why would anybody want to go there?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I know what you said. It's what you said that I'm questioning.The topic is: What was the first sin?
In order to answer that question, we need to know what "sin" is.Now, you're saying that being a good person isn't "good enough". How is being a good person related to sin? (Never mind the usual rote hogwash about "sacrifices", etc. Try to think it through for yourself.)So, the question is, again: Why would I choose to go to heaven with the step-takers when I have the option of being with the ordinary good people instead?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

There's a comma after the "Now". I didn't mean it in the sense of "Now you're saying something different." I meant it in the sense of, "Oh, by the way, you're saying...."I didn't say you changed anything. Don't be so defensive. As I said, I'm not interested in any hogwash about "baptism" or what you think is "in accordance with the Bible".I'm not asking for a sermon. I'm asking some fairly simple questions here: What is sin? Specifically, what was the first sin? Why was it "wrong"?What is it about sin that distinguishes it from "goodness"? (Bear in mind that we're talking about the first sin here, presumably in Genesis, so New Testament jumping-through-hoops doesn't really apply.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Because it's the first sin we're talking about. It's a chance to look at what sin really is without all the baggage that you're carrying from "throughout the bible".It has already been pointed out that it makes no sense to call Eve's "disobedience" the first sin, because she had no way of knowing what sin was or even what disobedience was.I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that sin is basically just using our free will.Adam and Eve were created with free will, apparently, though they needed the serpent to remind them that they could use it. They couldn't "knowingly go against" anything because they didn't know - not until they had already exercised their free will.Sometimes when we use our free will, we screw up. That's where forgiveness of sin comes in. God pre-forgives us for our pre-sins because He was the one who made us capable of sinning. He was the one who gave us free will. It would make no sense for Him to punish us for doing what He gave us the authority to do. And it would make no sense for Him to sacrifice Himself to atone to Himself for what He gave us authority to do.So sin has less to do with "knowingly" doing wrong and more to do with making poor decisions. The sin to be avoided is not bothering to consider the consequences of our actions, not reviewing our actions and assessing where we could have done better.We're all sinners because we're not perfect. But the "bad" sin is failure to learn from our mistakes.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You're still not getting the point. How could God "set a special test of obedience" before they knew right from wrong? How can the teacher set a test before the lesson begins? Sorry, that's not a given here. We're dealing with the story as written in Genesis, not with a lot of additions and fabrications. That's not a fact at all. Please address the issue: How could God test Adam and Eve before they were capable of discerning good and evil?(And if you're going to respond to my posts, I'd appreciate you responding to what I post instead of wasting my time with a lot of sermonizing.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I'm not "bashing" you for preaching. I'm telling you that your preaching is irrelevant. I've heard all the sermons before and they don't make any more sense than they did before.You still haven't actually responded to what I posted.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Fair enough, though Romans, Greeks and Aramaniacs don't have any relevance to this discussion. So you keep saying, but you still haven't addressed the question: How could they possibly "know" before they had the "knowledge"? If "they knew not to", as you claim, the whole Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is meaningless. Again, how could they "know better" before they "knew"? And they had no way of knowing whether that was good or evil. What God said is irrelevant. Adam and Eve had no way of knowing that they were supposed to "obey" God. They had no idea what "obedience" was. And they can't be held responsible for that because they didn't know it was "wrong".Really, what possible significance can the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil have, if Adam and Eve were expected to have the knowledge of good and evil already?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Your own music-teacher anecdote refutes your argument.The initial assessment had nothing to do with your final grade, did it? You didn't pass or fail the class based on that initial assessment, did you? Why not? Because your teacher knew that you didn't know the material yet.If that test had any relevance to God's "test" at all, then God's "test" would have had no bearing on Adam and Eve's pass/failure - i.e. no bearing on sin.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

And he wouldn't have punished you for something you were not capable of, would he?He assessed you so that he knew what to teach you. After he had done all he could to teach you, if you still hadn't learned, you would fail the class.Similarly, God wouldn't punish Adam and Eve before He tried to teach them. In their case, eating the fruit was the teaching. There was no possible way that they could fail before the lesson began. Jesus is irrelevant to this discussion.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

How can "allowing" oneself to be deceived be a sin?If she allowed it, she wasn't deceived - she made a willful choice.If she really was deceived, it was no sin.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Hi, Diios. I presume your reply was aimed at me. Eve had information. She had no way of knowing it was "the truth". She had no way of distinguishing true from false, right from wrong, good from evil - until she ate the fruit.Since she was incapable of making an informed decision, it was no sin.Edited by Ringo, : Fixed missspelling of Diios' name.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Then newborn babies go to hell? That's what I'm saying. On the contrary, "I was only following orders," is the inexcusable position. Failure to evaluate the morality of an order you do understand is a sin. Blind obedience is a sin.Failure to follow an order you don't understand is a mistake, not a sin. The point is that she didn't know they were "pertinent facts". She had no basis for the appraisal of pertinence.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

It's the "paradox of Genesis" again. Did God lie when He said they would die that same day? Did He treat them unfairly when He punished them for "disobedience"?It gets complicated if you try to get every detail of the story to make sense.Yes, the whole message of the story seems to be that they (we) are indeed responsible for their (our) actions. The story about how they became responsible has a few plot holes in it.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I don't think she necessarily sees that. She has two choices and she picks one.Does she eat the fruit because she "believes" the serpent over God? Or does she eat because she likes fruit and doesn't understand the reason not to eat it?Edited by Ringo, : Apelling.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I don't see that as any different from what I've been saying: that Adam and Eve were created with the ability to make choices (free will) but the fruit gave them the ability to make informed choices.To make informed choices, we need true alternatives. God's "Don't touch or else," was only one side of the coin. The other side was presented through (His representative?) the serpent.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC