|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Importance of Original Sin | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
purpledawn writes: Christianity Doesn't Need Original Sin It occurs to me that Christian apologetics is an area where there is a need for original sin (apologetics being considered an aspect of the great commission). Whilst there are any number of battlegrounds of objection between the non-Christian and the Christian some are more substantial and hard fought over than others. How many miles of posts are written over God committing genocide or condoning rape or swooning on a tree instead of dying on a cross? Original sin is one of those hotbeds. And for good reason! It is a countered so furiously because it provides a mechanism whereby the responsibility for mans own sin is laid at the door of man himself. One good way to avoid your responsibilites is to deny that you have them. Earlier you were suggesting (iirc) that a simple "it is in mans nature to sin" might suffice - but that doesn't counter the immediate defence of "well if it is my nature and God created me with this nature then it's God's fault that I sin".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
There is no mention of "Spiritual Death" in the story or of some "pain of his spiritual death " in the story or of any wrenching from the proper connection with the divine life and health-giver in the story or "screaming, torn spiritual nerve endings" in the story. I'm paraphrasing and condensing on the assumption that Straggler isn't familiar with the variety of the Christian Cult of Ignorance I happen to be peddling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yet none of that is in the story.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jar writes: Yet none of that is in the story. Paul seems to think it is .. and he's in slightly better position to comment (I'm inclined to believe)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Perhaps Paul simply never read the story just as today many Christians never read the Bible.
Or maybe he was simply creating a new religion and making stuff up. Yet none of that is in the story.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:But that isn't a good defense. That defense is used by those who don't want to take responsibility, IMO, or they just want to argue. Man's imagination at work. It seems to be in man's nature to blame others also. If one feels there is no God and man's nature is a product of however he evolved. Who do we blame then? Do we blame parents for having us or blame them for marrying the wrong person if we end up with an anomaly? One point of the story is that sin is in our nature. We just need to not dwell on the creative elements of the story or the creative elements used in arguments. Whether one believes God did it or we evolved this way, good and bad are in our nature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes: So God said don't eat the apple and the snake said do. One of us can't read as I can not find the word apple in the book of Genesis much less in the first 4 chapters. The word apple appears in the Bible 8 times. Deu 32:10, Psa 17:8, Pro 7:2, Sgs 2:3, Sgs 8:5, Lam 2:18, Joe 1:12 and Zec 2:8. So no neither God or the serpent said anything about eating an apple.
Straggler writes: How on Earth were Adam or Eve supposed to know which one was right and which one wrong? All the man had to know was that he was told not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The woman came along after all things were created so she did not witness the things the man did, therefore she had an excuse to be deceived by the serpent. The problem was that the man chose for whatever reason to disobey God. Whether it was right or wrong is irrelevant.
Straggler writes: Where do you think that nature came from? The information was included in the DNA.
Straggler writes: Oooohh ICANT if you knew what the latest research told us about about our misconceptions of freewill I suspect you would have an apoplectic fit. I have been pastoring for over 45 years and have had to deal with people all that time. In that time I have learned you can not make a person do anything that they do not choose to do. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
All the man had to know was that he was told not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. How does man know not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil if man has no knowledge of good and evil? Without the foreknowledge of evil, man has no warning that evil exists. God says, "Don't eat from this tree".The snake says, "Hey, God came by earlier and said it he changed his mind and it's okay to eat." Since Adam and Eve have NO knowledge that evil exists, they have no reason not to believe the snake.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Nuggin writes: How does man know not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil if man has no knowledge of good and evil? Here's what God said:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. He didn't have to have knowledge of good or evil to not eat of the tree. He was instructed not to eat from it.
Without the foreknowledge of evil, man has no warning that evil exists. Nope, Adam didn't know what evil was, but God did. That's why he(God) told him not eat of the tree. It was a simple command.
Since Adam and Eve have NO knowledge that evil exists, they have no reason not to believe the snake. God commanded the man not to eat of the tree. Adam had to take Gods word for it. It's like when a mother says to a 4 yr old, don't touch the stove or you will get burned. The kid touches it, why? Because the kid doesn't know what burned means. Just like Adam didn't know what evil meant. It doesn't change the fact that the parent knew what was right and the child disobeyed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Straggler writes: Either way - I don't see why they would have any basis for believing God over the snake with regard to the whole apple conundrum. It's not like God was some dude just walking by and said "yo, Adam, hey what's up? Don't eat from the tree of good and evil cause you'll, you know, die. Oh and keep a heads up for that snake too. BTW, where are your parents and do they know your out this late?". They knew God was their Father. Just like we know who our parents are. We as kids were taught not to go with strangers. It is drilled into kids heads these days, and rightly so. Are you going around telling all the kids that you can't understand why they aren't jumping into the cars of strangers? God/Father God, told His kids that it wouldn't benefit them to eat of the tree. They knew God their Father told them this and disobeyed. It's not Gods fault. It was a simple command. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Nope, Adam didn't know what evil was, but God did. That's why he(God) told him not eat of the tree. It was a simple command. Yes, however since Adam has had the concept of evil kept from him he has no reason to suspect that anyone, especially an agent from God, would lie to him. So, here's the scenario: God says: "Don't eat from this tree".Adam and Eve say: "Okay." A couple of days go by. They are visited by a talking snake. Snake: "God sent me and said it's okay to eat from the tree now." Adam and Eve: "Really?" Snake: "Yes." Adam and Eve: "Are you sure?" Snake: "I'm a talking snake. Obviously I've been created by God to give you this message." Adam and Eve: "Well, since we only know about truth and have no knowledge of anything being different than truth, this is clearly a message from God to eat from the tree." It's like when a mother says to a 4 yr old, don't touch the stove or you will get burned. The kid touches it, why? Because the kid doesn't know what burned means. Only in this scenario the mom tells the kid not to touch it. The kid doesn't touch it. Then dad comes home and says "It's okay, you can touch it". The kid does. So mom punishes the kid for the rest of eternity. The kid DOESN'T KNOW not to believe Dad. Mom never said "Don't listen to Dad".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
purpledawn writes: But that isn't a good defense. Let's look.
That defense is used by those who don't want to take responsibility, Take responsibility for a nature God decided to give them? This wouldn't even pass a grand jury, never mind result in a conviction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Participants please reread Message 1 and adjust accordingly.
Is the A&E story vital to the necessity of Jesus? This thread is not an analysis of the A&E story.If anyone feels this type of analysis is necessary to their argument, please make it clear how the analysis supports a position that the story is vital or not vital to the necessity of Jesus. Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') thread. Thank youAdminPD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
* message deleted by author to comply with admin request *
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The topic isn't really about whose to blame for why man is the way he is. My position and I think jar's is that the A&E story was created to try and explain why man is the way he is. It isn't describing an actual event. Paul wanted to say that we have always been the way we are, so he used the creation story for a visual. I don't have an issue with that. Jesus didn't use the idea of original sin to spread the good news. Paul used Adam to make an argument that we've always been able to sin, but he could still make that argument without the creation story. Someone could still make that argument today by using evolution. Not as interesting a story, but it could be done. The Doctrine of Original Sin came into play through reinterpretation of the creation story by Greek church fathers. Message 25 Jesus came for the lost sheep of Israel, not the Gentiles. The creation story wasn't essential to Judaism and wasn't essential to Jesus' message. His message would be the same without it. The OT doesn't support that the messiah was coming to save people from their sinful nature. I agree that apologetics and evangelicals probably need the concept, but Jesus didn't and I don't feel Paul did either.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024