|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Importance of Original Sin | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: So we're talking about your opinion on this... Personal opinion is all anyone has. -
"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. Indeed a possibility in that case - were it the only case. In the Timothy case there's nothing to suggest a myth. In the (Romans) case being looked at however, the insertion of myth in the context of a purposeful, forensic analysis fits like the aforementioned tennis ball on a piston rod. -
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. Much energy has been shed on that topic. Whilst I can certainly see a place for an other-than-worldly-kind of "equality" between men and women I'm inclined to take the view that this doesn't include the instruction that women don't open their mouth's and speak in church. Certainly some of the (gifted) women who preach in my church don't think that. -
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... When you say "sin is to be avoided" and when you imply your throwing your hands up in horror you are pointing to the existence of "ought". "Sin ought to be avoided merely because of consequence?" you ask.
Ought is a concept belonging to the realm of the knowledge of right and wrong - which is the realm we post-Fall creatures occupy and are subjected to. We ought to do what is right because ought pushes us to feel that way. The context of my comments related to Adam and Eve however. They occupied a realm in which no such knowledge existed. We can't speak of what they ought to have done since ought wasn't informing them at the time of their choice. Promised consequences were. Of course, after the Fall they were in the same boat as we were and were, presumably, able to avail of God's offer of salvation just like anyone else. Fitting huh?
Oh, and how do we love God? By what we do to the least of his people. I'm not sure what you mean here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jar writes: But you have not yet shown why Adam or Eve should know they should obey the God character in the story or the serpent in the story. Perhaps that's because the Christianity I market doesn't hold that they should have known they should obey (for obvious reasons). When faced with a consequence-based choice there is no need to refer to should/should not's in your choosing. You can focus on the consequentials on offer and pick from them. One negative consequence they obtained was sense of guilt and shame that attaches to doing that which God tells you not to do. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: So you're just going to close your eyes to possibilities that might suggest you're wrong? Because, well, there could be... who, exactly, was Timothy and what kind of background did he have? Is it plausible that he understood that the A&E story was a myth already so Paul had no need to point it out? C.S. You could take the same stance on a 1001 issues in the NT - that I should suppose all sorts of possibilities open (without the text suggesting any particular reason to hold them open) until such time as I can firmly close them. Wouldn't it be a sensible thing to take a plain reading until you find a plain reading inserts tennis balls into the works? As it is, Adam and Eve story gives us remarkable insight into many facets of sin. Decide it myth and you remove a large component without putting anything back in it's place. Perhaps you can briefly suggest a biblical alternative to sin's taking residence in mans constitution .. by way of closing the gap you desire to create? -
I really wish you would have prodvided some verses so I knew what you're referencing right now instead of having to wait for you to present it now that I've requested it. You should always provide verses, or message numbers to where they were already provided, when you're referencing a part of the Bible like you are here. Sorry, I thought it clear we were in the Romans reference. Will do better in future.. -
Okay, so yeah, I still don't see this as bad as you're making it out to be. Look at it this way: "Therefore, just as Anaking Skywalker already had the Midi-chlorians in his cells before he learned the ways of the force and was lead to the dark side, too all men are born with the capacity to sin..." If you're referencing something that your audience understands is a myth, then there's no reason to point that out, especially when its because its beside the point. So, what was his audience like and did they already understand that the A&E story was a myth? If not, and it turns out that everyone really did think the events actually occured, then that would just mean that they were wrong. Its no big deal, really. People back then believed all kinds of wrong things. The trouble with 'just as ... Midi-chlorians' is that it has no explanatory value. And you need explanatory value if you are to construct an impregnable argument If given the Skywalker analogy - but it's not actually Midi-cholrians that have anything to do with our dark side then you've not presented any mechanism. You've merely waved a magic wand that produces a dark side in us, thrown in an analogy and left it at that. The Adam/Eve story assist, for instance, in arguing that responsibility for sin is devolved down to the individual. The story dis-associates God's creation of freewilled man with man creating sin in man. Paul deals with various objections to the gospel in the book of Romans - and here also, when you consider how often is it necessary to counter the objection of those who try to pin the end responsibility on God. Adam and Eve permits a counter to that objection. Luke Skywalker doesn't Would you agree that if examining the text itself - without prejudice - you would conclude Adam a historical person -
Right, so the straight forward answer is that Paul was wrong. But no, you're not capable of accepting that, so instead you have to twist what is written into some convoluted story to avoid admitting that Paul could have been wrong about something. The straightforward answer is that I've come to see that every single word Paul writes has a significance and depth to it that renders unwise, jumping to what appear to be obvious conclusions. -
Nope, you've just spun what I wrote to shoehorn it into your preconceived idea of the whole story. You could convince yourself of anything with your approach: Ignore the cases that suggest your wrong, close your eyes to other information, focus on the small parts that have convinced you you're right, and spin everything else into fitting in with the whole story. Hang on a sec. You've supposed me (one who has a knowledge of right and wrong) as suggesting consequences should form the basis of a Christian's decision making. This on the basis of my stating that consequences were all that Adam and Eve (who had no knowledge of right and wrong and who weren't Christians at the time) had in forming a basis for their decision making. You've taken what I say applied to them and figure I think it applies to me too?? -
Yeah, you'd have to be trying to follow what Jesus said, instead on focusing on Paul. I don't see conflict between what Jesus said and what Paul said. It's just that Paul is the one tasked with expounding or unpacking doctrine. It's natural I'd turn to him when the topic calls for dealing with the mechanics of things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jar writes: It is not our working definition of sin but rather YOUR version that YOU market. It is our working definition when it's me defending the Christianity I'm marketing against the objections you raise against it. It's a bit like having to assume God exists for the sake of argument so that you can call him the names you like to call him. -
Yet one positive consequence they gained was the ability to determine which choice they should make. I agree. It produced a situation where they would doubtlessly fail to make the choices they should* make. The resulting sin** would then be parlayed into assisting in their salvation or their damnation. With Adam and Eve and all the rest of us having a choice in which it would be. *where 'should' is defined by the Christianity I market as 'following God's instructionsl ** where sin is as previously defined albeit now with a should element
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jar writes: No, it is still only YOUR working definition, not Christianity. Sorry Charlie. And again, there is NOTHING in the story that shows they would necessarily fail. And the choice is simply whether or not to do right, something impossible until after they gained the great gift of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Nothing in the story about either salvation or damnation. Just not there Charlie. Original Sin is irrelevant to Christianity. Kicked to the touchline called 'gloopy disjointedness'. I get the hint..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Straggler writes: I might do. Why wouldn't I? Why wouldn't you? I'm inclined to agree with you. In the measure that God does/provides something that makes Adam go "Wow" is Satan's temptation more enabled. Satan is offering Adam that he can be like God afterall. It seems to me that there is no particular reason why Adam should choose this way or that way - it's left to him to decide what he wants without his being swayed this way or that by what's on offer. There certainly is no sense that "this is what I ought do" applies (where 'ought' contains a moral dimension) We seem to be tied to the notion that sin necessarily involves choice with a moral element to it. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
ICANT writes: Now if you saw all these things and the being that you saw do them told you not to eat the fruit of a specific tree, would you disobey that being? Not unless I was given cause to be swayed in another direction. And if I wasn't given cause to be swayed in another direction (unto balance in the influence exerted by the competing options) then I can't see how the choice can be said to be a free-willed one. I mean, a set of choices in which one of the options is a no-brainer isn't exactly a choice that can be said to involve free-will. Such a situation would see the no-brainer option exert excessive influence. As stated to Straggler, the more God impresses Adam, the more the temptation to be like God is empowered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
iano writes: Satan is offering Adam that he can be like God afterall.
ICANT writes: Where did Satan or the serpent make that offer to the man? Here..
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
ICANT writes: What cause was given to the first man to disobey and eat the fruit? He knew the consequences was death. The fruit was desirable in it's being pleasing to the eye and being good for food. But since all the other fruit was like that there was no reason to dice with death in order to avail of this particular fruit. However, the forbidden fruit was also desirable for gaining wisdom. Desire was awakened in Adam on seeing it (presumably God enabled this desire to be awakened in him as part of his design). This desire fulfilled .. was the positive counter-offer to the negative offer of death.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
ICANT writes: Where did the man say the fruit was pleasing to the eye or good for food? He didn't say it nor did he need to in order for it to be so. It was said of the fruit of the trees planted in the garden generally. It's an objective fact that the fruit in the garden possessed these characteristics. Given that fruit generally was pleasing to the eye/good for food - supported by the fact that a specific food had the same characteristic as fruit generally - leads me to assume he also saw what she saw. In other words: the fruit generally, couldn't have been described as pleasing to the eye/good for food if it didn't strike Adam that way. -
Who told the man the fruit was desirable for gaining wisdom? The man had been told 1 thing about the fruit. God did tell the man, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". So when the woman brought him the fruit and told him it was good he had a choice to make. He knew she was going to die because God had said so. He could chose not to eat the fruit and be alone or he could chose to eat the fruit and die with her. He said in this statement a man would give up everything for his wife and in action he did exactly that. He chose to die with her. Making an assumption like the one up top (his seeing the food as pleasing/good for food) is a safe one to make in light of objective facts about the food. What you've done above is made a complete leap to something unsupported in the text. A way to demonstrate this is to posit an alternative that makes use of facts. He had told her what God had said about dying on eating. She also had the serpent telling her she wouldn't die on eating. And she choose - deciding to opt for the serpents version. He had what God had told him and had, presumably what she told him - since he was there with her when she was seeing the fruit as desirable for gaining wisdom. If she was able to decide between being told she would die/wouldn't die, why couldn't he? Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
ICANT writes: I don't see where that says the serpent said unto the man. I can't find anywhere the serpent talked to the man. I can find where the man blamed God and the woman for the problem as he said: quote:Genesis 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. God said to the man: quote:Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; So the man listened to his wife not the serpent. If you pay close attention to the text of 3:6,7 you will notice the womans eyes were not opened when she ate the fruit. Their eyes was open after the man disobeyed God and ate the fruit. I'm not getting the significance of the woman/serpent being the purveyor of tidings unto him eating. He is given one story by God which contains a negative consequence. And one story by his wife that presumably* contains a positive consequence. And he chooses to eat. * I say 'presume' because we are told he listened to her in his eating and she only had the serpents positive story to recount. Your 'he ate to join her in death' idea doesn't require him listening to her.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
hooah writes: So he was right there with her, but he didn't hear the snake He was with her when she saw that the fruit was good and ate it. That could have been some time after the serpent made his suggestion.
quote: Killer stuff, this detailing. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jaywill writes: This is a common mistake. Having watched you slice (usually unbelieving) opposition like the proverbial hot knife, it is with some trepidation that I query this claim.
What Adam and Eve knew about what was good to do and what was not good to do came directly from God. What they needed to know about good and evil was derived directly from His command. To eat of every tree of the garden was good.To eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not good and not allowed. They got that directly from God's command. You are assuming that which is under discussion. All we can say for certain is that they knew what God commanded (because that is what he did). We cannot assume they have a sense that this was morally good (and it's opposite morally bad) - especially in light of them later coming into a knowledge of what was (clearly evidenced as such by their reaction) morally good and evil. Even if God said, "don't do this, because it's bad" it would have no meaning unless they had some place to hang the concept 'bad'. Since that concept is only gained on eating they are left without mechanism beforehand. -
Adam named the animals. He had to have had wisdom to know what was a good name for each. When Adam's wife was brought before him he had to know that it was a good thing that he now had a helpmeet. And she was very good. So we cannot say Adam had no wisdom and discernment. Perhaps the free fellowship he had with God was his direct channel of discernment. Something tasting good requires an appreciation of goodness - but it's not a goodness that involves morality. Meeting a female whom you have been equipped to be attracted to is good and you must have an appreciation of what feels good in order to function in this regard - but again, that's not a moral kind of goodness -
Since Adam was born into a state which none of us can know, it is hard for us to imagine that state. But Adam was not a moral moron. He was a very good creation dependent upon God. His thrust towards independence from God brought in the tragedy of the fall of man. My own view is that Adam was a-moral and that his decision making was one based on what he saw as competing consequences - not moralities. This is based on: a) the options given were couched in consequential terms: negative consequences and positive ones. Both God and the serpent talked in consequences. b) there is nothing to fill the knowledge vacuum about their existance prior to their gaining a knowledge of good and evil. It's not good enough to say Adam was born in a state none of can know - a state which doesn't involve a knowledge of good and evil - and then assume he had some kind of knowledge of good an evil that wasn't the kind gained on eating. His thrust towards independence was a possibility installed in him by his creator and so his choosing to go away from God must be seen by God as a good thing (where the goodness of his being able to choose supercedes (in his Enablers eye) the badness of the direction he chose to go in. I see Adam as a pre-person and not at all an end product. He became someone who was placed in precisely the same situation as everyone ever born - fallen, but with the possibility of being redeemed. It is only after a pre-stage we call 'life on earth' that anybody - Adam included - can become as God ultimately intended them to be. I'd see this latter notion supported by the fact that, search as one might, there isn't a clear hint of a loving father/son relationship existing between God and Adam. God as guardian, provider, enabler, educator - yes. But God as loving, relational Father? Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
hooah writes: When was he with her? The text/context implies that he was with her when she initially ate it. But a literal reading doesn't say at what point he came to her side, now does it? It doesn't. Which is why I used the word 'could'. Perhaps he was with her when the serpent was talking to her. Perhaps not. Since we don't know we can't assume either way. You seemed to be assuming he was with her when the serpent was talking to her.
So he was right there with her, but he didn't hear the snake Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Because it's the most obvious choice, mainly since it doesn't say anything like "then adam comes walking over and sees eve talking to a snake". Instead, the very next sentence says "who (adam) was with her", which implies he was with her when the event in the preceding sentence took place. This is the problem with the bible, and something that has reared it's head on EvC recently. It's far too open to interpretation, yet people take it as a literal truth. So open to interpretation is it that you cannot even tell people they are wrong. Every reading is just as valid as the next. The text sees an encounter take place between the serpent and eve. As a result of that encounter Eve comes to a view and acts on it with Adam present. That there is some time difference between the encounter and the view formed is indicated by "when". That time difference could be a second or it could be a week. We cannot tell either way. If your view rests on assuming the one over the other then it stands on sandy ground and is subject to being washed away. There is no problem so long as you don't stand too much on sandy ground. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024