|
Author
|
Topic: Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"?
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 61 of 240 (589981)
11-05-2010 11:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by kbertsche
11-05-2010 1:06 AM
|
|
Re: Free Willy
First, Paul based his argument on Genesis 2&3. That is where he looked for support.
kbertsche writes: Note that part of the curse was:
Gen. 3:16b writes:
NET Bible "You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you. NASB "Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you. And the NIV says
quote:
16 To the woman he said, I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.
and the KJV says
quote:
16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
BUT... what do any of those have to do with original sin? As I read Genesis I don't find things going downhill. Sure, just as in life, there are highs and lows, good and bad, but nothing remarkably different, nothing to show that everyone is damned by some original sin.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by kbertsche, posted 11-05-2010 1:06 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 62 of 240 (589983)
11-05-2010 11:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 55 by kbertsche
11-05-2010 12:22 AM
|
|
Re: Free Willy
To continue your "child" analogy, God is analogous to the loving father who spends time with his children and cares for them. They know him well and should trust him: Perhaps they should, but little children do NOT know that, it is one of the things that they learn as they learn about right and wrong.
The serpent is analogous to an evil adult who tries to prey on children. He twists the wording of God's prohibition, confuses Eve about what God has said, then questions God's motives. Like children today, Adam and Eve should have trusted the loving parent who they knew. Instead, they listened to the evil predator who they did not know. Even though a child can't discern the motivations or intentions of an evil predator, he can trust his loving parent. The Genesis account seems to be portrayed more as an issue of trust than as an issue of needing to discern right from wrong.
quote:
But they did choose to obey, they obeyed the most recent authority figure. You seem to expect them to understand that it is right to obey the God character in the story but wrong to obey the serpent character in the story. Until after they gained the knowledge and capability to distinguish right from wrong, they were incapable of mak9ing the decisions you seem to expect.
—jar
To continue your "child" analogy, God is analogous to the loving father who spends time with his children and cares for them. They know him well and should trust him:
NET Bible writes:
Gen. 2:8 The LORD God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed. Gen. 2:18 The LORD God said, It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him. Gen. 3:8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the orchard. Gen. 3:9 But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, Where are you?
The serpent is analogous to an evil adult who tries to prey on children. He twists the wording of God's prohibition, confuses Eve about what God has said, then questions God's motives. Like children today, Adam and Eve should have trusted the loving parent who they knew. Instead, they listened to the evil predator who they did not know. Even though a child can't discern the motivations or intentions of an evil predator, he can trust his loving parent. The Genesis account seems to be portrayed more as an issue of trust than as an issue of needing to discern right from wrong.
Yes, I believe that you see it that way, but that is NOT what the story actually says. The serpent is actually the one character that tells the truth, the God character does not. The big issue is how the story is viewed, and I think Paul did Christianity a great disservice in his interpretation. I see the story as mankind getting a great gift, the capability of tell right from wrong and the charge to try to do right. Yes, just as with Prometheus stealing fire from the gods, there is a price, but the gift is worth so much more than the penalties imposed.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 55 by kbertsche, posted 11-05-2010 12:22 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 65 by kbertsche, posted 11-06-2010 1:31 AM | | jar has not replied |
|
iano
Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: 07-27-2005
|
|
|
Message 63 of 240 (590009)
11-05-2010 12:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 43 by Panda
11-04-2010 9:12 PM
|
|
Re: Free Willy
Panda writes: I too do not have a definite answer. I also agree that the concepts of right and wrong alone do not help answer the question... Indeed not. They merely add a tier to list of available categories of influences for and against an action.
I think that you would also need to be able to be suspicious/trusting/cautious/etc. - all of which require the knowledge of good/evil first, before they can be given context. I dunno. One can become suspicious of unstable looking rocks on a hillside due to previous encounters with the consequences of them tumbling down. Consequences that don't have any moral element attaching...
I guess that from a simplistic view I would act on what the last person that had spoken to me had said - as Person B's 'pros' were greater than the poorly understood 'con' of Person A. And if persons A's cons were better appreciated than poorly understood B's pro's - even though you encountered B later? Surely you'd go with A? If so, the sequence of encountering isn't the issue. -
This leaves me in the position that Adam and Eve were very poorly equipped to make that choice, and that even if they had understood good/evil they would still be poorly equipped. You seem to be assuming A was understood less than B. Whatever they understood about death, there is no reason to suppose they understood less of it than what a knowledge of good and evil might entail. I know I'm assuming the choice was a balanced one - because nothing else makes much sense. Have you any reason to suppose it was unbalanced, other by assuming it was unbalanced? Edited by iano, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by Panda, posted 11-04-2010 9:12 PM | | Panda has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 64 of 240 (590107)
11-06-2010 12:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by jar
11-05-2010 11:08 AM
|
|
Re: Free Willy
quote:
First, Paul based his argument on Genesis 2&3. That is where he looked for support.
Please show us where Paul insists on pulling Gen 2&3 out of the context of the rest of Genesis? Paul was trained by the rabbis, and tended to view things in a very broad context.
quote:
BUT... what do any of those have to do with original sin?
I thought this was obvious?!? Adam and Eve sinned. As a result, they were cursed by God. Cain's sin is connected to the curse by the author of Genesis, and hence to the "original sin" of Adam and Eve.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by jar, posted 11-05-2010 11:08 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 69 by jar, posted 11-06-2010 11:42 AM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 65 of 240 (590110)
11-06-2010 1:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by jar
11-05-2010 11:16 AM
|
|
Re: Free Willy
quote:
Perhaps they should, but little children do NOT know that, it is one of the things that they learn as they learn about right and wrong.
So in your world a little child is no more likely to trust a loving parent than a predatory stranger? He has no reason or inclination to trust the parent over the stranger?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by jar, posted 11-05-2010 11:16 AM | | jar has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 66 by frako, posted 11-06-2010 7:18 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
frako
Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: 09-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 66 of 240 (590123)
11-06-2010 7:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 65 by kbertsche
11-06-2010 1:31 AM
|
|
Re: Free Willy
So in your world a little child is no more likely to trust a loving parent than a predatory stranger? He has no reason or inclination to trust the parent over the stranger? First you are talking about an eleven day old child in a garden where everything was good and created for him, im guesssing god forgot to mention to them do not listen to the snake it is the one evil, bad, manipulating thing here from where should adam or eve get the idea that some strangers are not good to listen to. How many 11 YEAR old children get lured to pedophiles homes on one or a nother lie? Edited by frako, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by kbertsche, posted 11-06-2010 1:31 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 67 of 240 (590149)
11-06-2010 10:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by frako
11-06-2010 7:18 AM
|
|
Re: Free Willy
quote:
First you are talking about an eleven day old child in a garden where everything was good and created for him, im guesssing god forgot to mention to them do not listen to the snake it is the one evil, bad, manipulating thing here from where should adam or eve get the idea that some strangers are not good to listen to. How many 11 YEAR old children get lured to pedophiles homes on one or a nother lie?
But Adam did know something about the nature of the animals according to the story:
NET Bible writes:
Gen. 2:19 The LORD God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. Gen. 2:20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found.
In the Hebrew context, a name corresponds to the character or nature of the thing named. The "naming" suggests that Adam knew something about the nature of the serpent. In particular, he should have known what the narrator tells us in 3:1
NET Bible writes: Gen. 3:1 Now the serpent was more shrewd than any of the wild animals that the LORD God had made.
But you could make a case that Eve didn't know these things as well as Adam did. She wasn't around when Adam named the animals.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by frako, posted 11-06-2010 7:18 AM | | frako has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 68 by ringo, posted 11-06-2010 11:24 AM | | kbertsche has replied | | | Message 70 by frako, posted 11-06-2010 7:26 PM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 68 of 240 (590159)
11-06-2010 11:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by kbertsche
11-06-2010 10:00 AM
|
|
Re: Free Willy
kbertsche writes: The "naming" suggests that Adam knew something about the nature of the serpent.
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 serpent let the cat out of the bag:
quote:
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
and God later confirmed that the serpent was right:
quote:
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever....
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by kbertsche, posted 11-06-2010 10:00 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 69 of 240 (590163)
11-06-2010 11:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by kbertsche
11-06-2010 12:18 AM
|
|
Re: Free Willy
First let me deal with this one,
So in your world a little child is no more likely to trust a loving parent than a predatory stranger? He has no reason or inclination to trust the parent over the stranger? Exactly. That is why little children can be exploited. Until the have the tools, they just are not capable of making such distinctions. But beyond that, in the Garden of Eden the serpent figure is not predatory, tells the truth and actually helps Adam and Eve.
Please show us where Paul insists on pulling Gen 2&3 out of the context of the rest of Genesis? Paul was trained by the rabbis, and tended to view things in a very broad context. What I said was that Paul used the Garden of Eden fable found in Genesis 2&3 as the support base for his assertion. There is no indication in Romans 5 that he is using more than those passages.
I thought this was obvious?!? Adam and Eve sinned. As a result, they were cursed by God. Cain's sin is connected to the curse by the author of Genesis, and hence to the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. And my point is, until Adam and Eve had eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge they were not even capable of sinning. Paul is simply wrong in his assessment.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by kbertsche, posted 11-06-2010 12:18 AM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
frako
Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: 09-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 70 of 240 (590212)
11-06-2010 7:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by kbertsche
11-06-2010 10:00 AM
|
|
Re: Free Willy
The "naming" suggests that Adam knew something about the nature of the serpent. Well hi did not know that was a bad thing cause hi did not know what bad was. And the whole curse by god is also self explainteory, i doubt they where cursed by god, but by the apple if you do not know what good and bad is you do not know it is not very good being mortal, you do not know that weeds are bad you take them as a nother flower in the garden. If you cannot see the whole picture, every place is a paradise to you but when you grasp the concept of right and wrong, good and bad .... you start notecing faults in everything. Take plastic for an example it was the best new thing it could be molded in to any shape or size a very good thing until they found out that it dose not degrade and it just piles up and up until our garbage dumps are full of it if you cannot see the other side it is a grate thing. That is why i think the original sin is the murder of able and that we all share that blood stain on our hands all borne of a murderer , in some holy books whit the same story we share a much bigger blood stain the murder of half of the population all of the kids, grandkids, grate grandkids.... of Abel. At least that is what i think the book is saying.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by kbertsche, posted 11-06-2010 10:00 AM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 71 of 240 (590317)
11-07-2010 4:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by iano
11-05-2010 8:21 AM
|
|
Re: Free will I, won't I
iano writes: Whilst I agree Adam is given contradictory information and understands that to be the case, I don't see how your conclusion follows from it. An all clear signal isn't understood as a contradictory thing but is instead, understood to be something to be expected at some point following a warning signal. An all clear signla would be a contradictory thing if issued whilst bombs where still falling.
The two phrases contradict each other. "Bombs will be falling" is contradictory to "Bombs will not be falling" regardless of whether bombs are actually falling. "Eat the fruit and you will surely die" is contradictory to "Eat the fruit and you will not die".
iano writes: Consider God and the serpent sitting side by side. God says "it's dangerous out there" the serpent then says "it's safe out there". Does the fact that the serpent speaks later mean Eve should side with the serpent. I don't see how that works. You see a policeman who tells you to stop your car because there is danger up ahead. You then see a different policeman who tells you to continue driving - the road is safe. Which policeman do you listen to?
(I would say that you would actually listen to both of them, but the 2nd policeman's message 'cancels out' the 1st policeman's message.) I am still left thinking that the serpent's message 'wins' due to chronological order. Edited by Panda, : clarity Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by iano, posted 11-05-2010 8:21 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 72 by iano, posted 11-08-2010 4:33 AM | | Panda has replied |
|
iano
Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: 07-27-2005
|
|
|
Message 72 of 240 (590411)
11-08-2010 4:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 71 by Panda
11-07-2010 4:30 PM
|
|
Re: Free will I, won't I
Panda writes: The two phrases contradict each other. "Bombs will be falling" is contradictory to "Bombs will not be falling" regardless of whether bombs are actually falling. "Eat the fruit and you will surely die" is contradictory to "Eat the fruit and you will not die". The example strikes me as a poor one. Eat/don't eat is simple contradiction without an in-statement reason to suppose the one true over the other. Bomb warning signal/all clear signal isn't so much a contradiction but a collection of statements in which the latter is expected to follow and render no-longer-current, the former.
You see a policeman who tells you to stop your car because there is danger up ahead.
You then see a different policeman who tells you to continue driving - the road is safe.
Which policeman do you listen to?
(I would say that you would actually listen to both of them, but the 2nd policeman's message 'cancels out' the 1st policeman's message.) You've done the same thing here in pushing a scenario which plays on expectancies surrounding an incident. If held up by a policemen because of danger up ahead you expect the police to deal with it and clear the way and eventually, to pronounce the road clear. I've suggested a neutral example devoid of expectancies. God speaks first and pronounces danger, the serpent speaks immediately after him and pronounces no danger - we can immediately see we've a contradiction but no particular reason to plump for the latter simply because it's the latter. Could you do the same - but without the 'expectancy' bit which resolves the contradiction. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by Panda, posted 11-07-2010 4:30 PM | | Panda has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 73 by Panda, posted 11-08-2010 6:22 AM | | iano has replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 73 of 240 (590420)
11-08-2010 6:22 AM
|
Reply to: Message 72 by iano
11-08-2010 4:33 AM
|
|
Re: Free will I, won't I
iano writes: The example strikes me as a poor one. Eat/don't eat is simple contradiction without an in-statement reason to suppose the one true over the other. Bomb warning signal/all clear signal isn't so much a contradiction but a collection of statements in which the latter is expected to follow and render no-longer-current, the former.
My arguement is not based on the analogy - it was meant to be clarified by it. Since it didn't clarify it, I will abandon the analogy.
iano writes: I've suggested a neutral example devoid of expectancies. God speaks first and pronounces danger, the serpent speaks immediately after him and pronounces no danger - we can immediately see we've a contradiction but no particular reason to plump for the latter simply because it's the latter.
And you describe no reason to plump for the former. The reason to choose the latter option is because there is no reason to not believe the serpent.
iano writes: Could you do the same - but without the 'expectancy' bit which resolves the contradiction. Ok, I'll try again. There is a fire in Bill's office block. Fire-safety person Alice tells Bill to go down the internal stairs to escape, because the outside stairs are old and dangerous.
[Alice then goes off to help a disabled person.]Fire-safety person Colin then tells Bill that the external stairs have recently been repaired and are not dangerous at all.
[Colin then goes off to help an unconscious person.] Which stairs would Bill choose and why? Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 72 by iano, posted 11-08-2010 4:33 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 74 by iano, posted 11-08-2010 7:09 AM | | Panda has replied |
|
iano
Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: 07-27-2005
|
|
|
Message 74 of 240 (590423)
11-08-2010 7:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 73 by Panda
11-08-2010 6:22 AM
|
|
Re: Free will I, won't I
Panda writes: My argument is not based on the analogy - it was meant to be clarified by it. Since it didn't clarify it, I will abandon the analogy. Thanks. -
And you describe no reason to plump for the former.
The reason to choose the latter option is because there is no reason to not believe the serpent. There's no reason not to believe God either. At least you haven't suggested why not other than to: a) use analogies in which there is no true contradiction given that the circumstances and expectations instantly resolve what is reasonable to believe. b) suppose Adam and Eve unconsidering robots whose course is set by the last hand at their rudder. Yet in response to the serpents temptation Eve says " but God did say..." indicating she understands the existance of a contradiction to what the serpent is saying. Robots don't do contradiction, they go where their pointed. -
There is a fire in Bill's office block. Fire-safety person Alice tells Bill to go down the internal stairs to escape, because the outside stairs are old and dangerous. [Alice then goes off to help a disabled person.] Fire-safety person Colin then tells Bill that the external stairs have recently been repaired and are not dangerous at all. [Colin then goes off to help an unconscious person.] Which stairs would Bill choose and why? You've done precisely the same thing as with the warning sirens and the two policemen. The narrative flow (assuming reasonable deductions by Bill) resolve any sense of the statements being considered as contradictory. If Alice told him not to use the stairs because, though intended for repair, they haven't been repaired yet - then Colins statement would be a contradiction. Perhaps Colin is under the false impression - although appearing subsequent to Alice. Perhaps Colin has the most up to date information afterall. Bill would have a choice to make. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 73 by Panda, posted 11-08-2010 6:22 AM | | Panda has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 75 by Panda, posted 11-08-2010 8:52 AM | | iano has replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 75 of 240 (590438)
11-08-2010 8:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by iano
11-08-2010 7:09 AM
|
|
Re: Free will I, won't I
iano writes: You've done precisely the same thing as with the warning sirens and the two policemen. The narrative flow (assuming reasonable deductions by Bill) resolve any sense of the statements being considered as contradictory.
No. There is no 'narrative flow'. Bill is told to do 2 different things by 2 different people. He has to choose.
iano writes: If Alice told him not to use the stairs because, though intended for repair, they haven't been repaired yet - then Colins statement would be a contradiction.
The commands are contradictory. They are mutually exclusive. Bill cannot go down both flights of stairs. He has to choose. There is only one part of each statement: "Go down the stairs I specify". The reasons are not part of the command. You are mixing up the 'command' with the 'coersion'/'justification'. If Person A tells you to kill Victim C because Victim C is a Nazi and Person B tells You to kill Victim C because Victim C is a Murderer then these are not contradictory commands.
iano writes: Perhaps Colin is under the false impression - although appearing subsequent to Alice. Perhaps Colin has the most up to date information afterall.
Yes. Perhaps, perhaps, maybe, maybe - but Bill doesn't know. All Bill knows is that Alice told him to use the internal stairs and that Colin then told him to use the external stairs. Which stairs would Bill choose and why? Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : typos Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by iano, posted 11-08-2010 7:09 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 76 by iano, posted 11-08-2010 10:17 AM | | Panda has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2