|
Author
|
Topic: Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"?
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 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 |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 82 of 240 (590532)
11-08-2010 4:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 81 by kbertsche
11-08-2010 3:24 PM
|
|
Re: Free Willy
kbertsche writes: According to the account, God had placed man in an idyllic garden. But man was not satisfied with this; he wanted to make himself like God. He tried to do this in the garden, and tried to do it again at Babel. The Genesis account portrays these attempts to make oneself like God as very bad, not as beneficial. I know that you read the story that way, but I will continue to point out that there are other ways to read the story and that you still fail to address the issues raised. First, Paul made no reference to Isaiah or to the Tower of Babel story so those are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the concept of original sin can be supported. Second, what you say makes absolutely no sense.
According to the account, God had placed man in an idyllic garden. But man was not satisfied with this; he wanted to make himself like God. There is nothing in the story that says man was dissatisfied with the garden or that man wanted to be more like god. The serpent mentions that eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil would make them more like god in one specific way, AND god later confirms that is the case. God never says anything that in any way says that knowing right from wrong is in any way a sin. In addition, the reason Adam and Eve are sent from the Garden of Eden is NOT because they disobeyed God, that issue was addressed by the curses, but because God feared that the might next eat from the Tree of Life and so live forever.
quote:
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
And you still have not explained how it is possible to sin before you have the tools that allow you to make choices about right and wrong.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 81 by kbertsche, posted 11-08-2010 3:24 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 87 of 240 (590667)
11-09-2010 11:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 84 by kbertsche
11-09-2010 11:01 AM
|
|
Re: Free Willy
No, these are part of the biblical context in which Paul was trained; they are relevant to understanding how Paul interpreted the events in the garden. But they are not mentioned as support in Romans 5 and so not evidenced. If they were not used then they were not used. It really is that simple. You can add to Romans 5 by asserting that there are other facts not in evidence, but what we are discussing is whether or not Paul's assertion is Roman's 5 is supported by the argument he presented.
Yes and no. The text says that Eve desired the fruit and its promised results (3:6). Eating the fruit was in direct disobedience to God. As stated in the NET Bible notes, "The temptation is to overstep divinely established boundaries." I am not concerned with Net Bible foot notes, or any other unsupported assertions.
Yes, but banishment WAS a secondary effect of their disobedience. If they had not disobeyed, they would not have been banished. Again, the cause is given in the story, the god character feared that in addition to learning right from wrong they would also eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal. The banishment was not as a punishment but rather for god's self esteem and protection.
I have yet to see a good historical-grammatical-literary argument from the text to the effect that Adam and Eve were not able to trust or obey God (or to sin) before eating the fruit. And I have never seen a good explanation of how anyone can possibly sin or even know not to disobey one authority figure over another until they have the knowledge of right and wrong.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 84 by kbertsche, posted 11-09-2010 11:01 AM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 89 by iano, posted 11-10-2010 5:53 AM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 94 of 240 (590860)
11-10-2010 9:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by iano
11-10-2010 5:53 AM
|
|
Re: Free Willy
My only idea is that it is possible you likely actually believe what you post. Perhaps you can explain how someone can know to obey one authority figure over another in a way that would teach them not to obey the most recent authority figure.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 89 by iano, posted 11-10-2010 5:53 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 97 by iano, posted 11-10-2010 10:25 AM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 98 of 240 (590876)
11-10-2010 10:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 97 by iano
11-10-2010 10:25 AM
|
|
Re: Free Willy
iano writes: When you say 'authority figure' do you mean that they are understood to be someone who should be obeyed? Where did you get the notion that God or the serpent were seen as authority figures? I got that from you. You made the claim that Adam and Eve should obey God. 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.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 97 by iano, posted 11-10-2010 10:25 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 103 by iano, posted 11-10-2010 11:16 AM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 102 of 240 (590881)
11-10-2010 11:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 100 by iano
11-10-2010 11:07 AM
|
|
Re: Free Willy
But they did not die that very day.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 100 by iano, posted 11-10-2010 11:07 AM | | iano has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 107 of 240 (590887)
11-10-2010 11:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 103 by iano
11-10-2010 11:16 AM
|
|
Re: Free Willy
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!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 103 by iano, posted 11-10-2010 11:16 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 108 by iano, posted 11-10-2010 11:41 AM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 111 of 240 (590893)
11-10-2010 11:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 108 by iano
11-10-2010 11:41 AM
|
|
Re: Free Willy
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!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 108 by iano, posted 11-10-2010 11:41 AM | | iano has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 116 of 240 (590905)
11-10-2010 12:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 115 by ringo
11-10-2010 12:45 PM
|
|
iano markets an evil god
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!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 115 by ringo, posted 11-10-2010 12:45 PM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 148 of 240 (591443)
11-13-2010 11:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 147 by ringo
11-13-2010 10:55 PM
|
|
ringo writes: Don't you find it odd that a doctrine as supposedly fundamental as original sin is only found in one book out of 66 and only references one other book of the 66? Or that in the one referenced book the God character seems to forget to mention something of that magnitude, maybe explain that when he said "on that day you will surely die" he didn't mean die die, but rather some slow acting spiritual death that will be inherited by all your kids; and "Oh by the way, because you screwed up I'm gonna have to knock up a virgin and then thirty years or so later kill off my bastard child. Thanks a bunch."
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 147 by ringo, posted 11-13-2010 10:55 PM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 150 of 240 (591475)
11-14-2010 11:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 149 by kbertsche
11-14-2010 10:52 AM
|
|
The text of Genesis was written in Hebrew, and Romans was written in Greek. What the text says needs to be translated into a language that we can understand (e.g. English), and this requires "extra-biblical" consideration of the original languages, history, and culture. And the "extra-biblical" consideration of the original languages, history, and culture tells us that the concept of Original Sin was NOT found in Genesis 2&3. Remember that Paul is creating something new, a new religion. The author of Genesis 2&3 was not creating the same religion that Paul was creating. Jews have an entirely different understanding of sin, and of how sin is dealt with, one that makes far more sense than what Paul was marketing. For the Jews, the next life is simply not all that big an issue, and sin, getting born again, being saved, is a continuing, ongoing process. That process is best typified during the Days of Atonement between Rosh Hoshanah and Yom Kippur. On the first day of every year God examines each individual and based on their behavior during the past year, writes their fate for the coming year in the Book, but the book is not sealed for ten days. During those ten days every Jew is expected to honestly examine their behavior, acknowledge where they have screwed up, try to make amends and commit to try not to make the same error in the future. Original Sin is a new concept created by Paul, and not one based on the Garden of Eden story or on the history and culture of the Jews. But even in Romans 5 Original Sin is not the important part. Even there Paul only uses it as a tool to market HIS interpretation of why Jesus has value.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 149 by kbertsche, posted 11-14-2010 10:52 AM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 153 of 240 (591484)
11-14-2010 11:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 152 by Phat
11-14-2010 11:27 AM
|
|
Re: Two Questions
Phat writes: 1) If there is no such thing as original sin, why did Jesus need to come and why all the hoopla about Him coming back? The whole idea of God blessing us seems to have less need..less meaning now. Perhaps Jesus came to set an example, to teach us "Here is what a Human can be." And the next step is the Judgment, how close to becoming human did you get?
Phat writes: 2) IF God lied in the story, what possible analogy or reasoning would that even correlate with? My conception of God is as a Being who cannot lie. Jesus even said that the devil was the "father of lies." The plain reading of this text distorts and challenges the meanings that I learned. Its almost as if the day I learned that God could lie, I myself began to die. If I cant trust the Bible and the God of the Bible, whom can I trust? So you limit what GOD can do?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 152 by Phat, posted 11-14-2010 11:27 AM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 154 by Phat, posted 11-14-2010 11:50 AM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 156 of 240 (591490)
11-14-2010 12:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 154 by Phat
11-14-2010 11:50 AM
|
|
Re: Two Questions
Phat writes: No. I believe in a God of no limits. God can certainly do anything. A God who is both good and bad is a shocker, however. Its like growing up in an abusive family. You cant trust your parent, so you must fend for yourself. The relationship with that parent is scarred perhaps for life. It was never supposed to be this way with God. Huh? Good and bad depend on a human point of view. And are you yet again confusing reality with fantasy? The Garden of Eden story is a fable, a fantasy. The character called God in the story is not GOD.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 154 by Phat, posted 11-14-2010 11:50 AM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 157 by Phat, posted 11-14-2010 12:13 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 158 of 240 (591494)
11-14-2010 12:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 157 by Phat
11-14-2010 12:13 PM
|
|
Back towards the topic Phat, please.
Topic Phat, not rabbit holes. Edited by jar, : fix sub-title
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 157 by Phat, posted 11-14-2010 12:13 PM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 160 by Phat, posted 11-14-2010 12:35 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 162 of 240 (591499)
11-14-2010 12:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 161 by nwr
11-14-2010 12:38 PM
|
|
Re: Two Questions
nwr writes: But can't you tell that the God character in the Adam and Eve story is out of character with what we would normally think of as God? And isn't that part of what makes it obvious that the story is a fable? And that the story is not about God but about man?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 161 by nwr, posted 11-14-2010 12:38 PM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 163 by Phat, posted 11-14-2010 12:59 PM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2