Importance of Original Sin

Personal opinion is all anyone has.- 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.- 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.- 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? I'm not sure what you mean here.

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.

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?- Sorry, I thought it clear we were in the Romans reference. Will do better in future..- 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 argumentIf 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'tWould you agree that if examining the text itself - without prejudice - you would conclude Adam a historical person- 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.- 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??- 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.

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.- 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

Kicked to the touchline called 'gloopy disjointedness'. I get the hint..

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.

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.

Here..

quote:

---

4 You will not certainly die, the serpent said to the woman. 5 For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

---

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.

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.- 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.

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.

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:

---

?6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

---

Killer stuff, this detailing.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Having watched you slice (usually unbelieving) opposition like the proverbial hot knife, it is with some trepidation that I query this claim. 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.- 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- 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.

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. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

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.