|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Panda writes: No. There is no 'narrative flow' I'm afraid there is. And that narrative flow resolves the contradictory information. From Bills perspective what Colin says indicates that Alice is correct (the stairs was dangerous) but out of date in her information (the stairs was old and dangerous as Alice said but has since been repaired). He should choose to follow Colins advice on the basis of Colins advice accomodating Alices advice and (apparently - from Bill's perspective) adding to it
quote: -
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'. Er... it was you who supplied the information which shows why Bill should go with Colins direction. If you want to strip that information away then there is no reason for Bill to follow the one over the other - each merely point to a stairs. -
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? I've explained why 'Colin' above. That assumes you keep to the original story. If limiting it to simple command without further information then there is no particular reason to choose the one over the other. Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
iano writes: From Bills perspective what Colin says indicates that Alice is correct (the stairs was dangerous) but out of date in her information (the stairs was old and dangerous as Alice said but has since been repaired). He should choose to follow Colins advice on the basis of Colins advice accomodating Alices advice and adding to it. quote:So when the Serpent accomodates God's command and adds to it, then there is a narrative flow that inevitably leads Eve to believe the Serpent. As it turned out, Colin was a sociopath and killed 18 people by sending them out onto dangerous stairs. In both instances: Eve and Bill weren't capable of making the correct decision because they were too innocent and trusting.
p.s.Please bare in mind that you are asking for an impossible hypothetical situation. The impossible part means that I will only ever be able to get close. When asking someone to provide an impossible real-world example (i.e. where there is no knowledge of good/evil/lies/deceit) it is not very constructive to then start nit-picking tiny details when the example (by definition) is not possible to create accurately. Almost as pointless as asking someone to describe a unicorn and then saying "But unicorns don't exist!" Edited by Panda, : ytops Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Panda writes: So when the Serpent accomodates God's command and adds to it, then there is a narrative flow that inevitably leads Eve to believe the Serpent. Could you point that accomodation out? Colin accomodates Alice by implicitly acknowledging her right .. but out of date. Bill isn't left with any contradiction to ponder upon (we're assuming the idea that Colin is out to trick him isn't on the or his agenda). Now consider the serpent.
quote: Mere pointing to a different staircase. Not enough in itself to warrant a decision for or against.
quote: Direct contradiction without accomodation. Directly on a par with Colin saying that Alice knew that the old staircase was safe but choose to say otherwise. Bill wouldn't have sure reason to accept what Colin says as he did in your original story. If one person can know one thing and say another then so can two persons. -
Please bare in mind that you are asking for an impossible hypothetical situation. The impossible part means that I will only ever be able to get close. When asking someone to provide an impossible real-world example (i.e. where there is no knowledge of good/evil/lies/deceit) it is not very constructive to then start nit-picking tiny details when the example (by definition) is not possible to create accurately. Almost as pointless as asking someone to describe a unicorn and then saying "But unicorns don't exist!" I've given you a equivilent paraphrasing of the Alice/Bill/Colin story based on the Genesis text provided. It wasn't at all impossible. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
iano writes:
God did acknowledge later on that the serpent was right:
quote:Direct contradiction without accomodation. Directly on a par with Colin saying that Alice knew that the old staircase was safe but choose to say otherwise. quote:It's the equivalent of Alice acknowleging that she was wrong/mistaken/lying. Edited by ringo, : Soelling. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Could you point that accomodation out? Colin accomodates Alice by implicitly acknowledging her right .. but out of date. Bill isn't left with any contradiction to ponder upon (we're assuming the idea that Colin is out to trick him isn't on the or his agenda).
Yes: the Serpent implicity acknowledges that god was wrong about the consequences.Eve is then told the correct consequences and has no reason to suspect duplicity. iano writes:
Which is why the serpent said:
quote:Mere pointing to a different staircase. Not enough in itself to warrant a decision for or against. quote:Now there is a reason for a decision. iano writes:
Apart from the fact that you are forgetting that Eve knows nothing about lying. Bill wouldn't have sure reason to accept what Colin says as he did in your original story. If one person can know one thing and say another then so can two persons.Eve would have no reason to suspect duplicity. iano writes:
Since your example had major flaws I am still not convinced. I've given you a equivilent paraphrasing of the Alice/Bill/Colin story based on the Genesis text provided. It wasn't at all impossible. ...
This seems to be drifting, so to re-focus: Eve was told 2 conflicting pieces of information.Since she had no reason to doubt the 2nd informer, I see no reason for her not to act as if the 2nd piece of information was correct. Do you see a reason for Eve to say that the Serpent was lying?Do you see a reason for Eve to understand that serpents can lie? Do you see a reason for Eve to know what a lie is? I say: "No" to the above questions. What do you say?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
The sin wasn't becoming more like God. The sin was the direct disobedience of God, and the desire to make oneself like God (c.f. Is 14:12-17).
The serpent let the cat out of the bag: and God later confirmed that the serpent was right: It's hard to understand how anybody could consider becoming more like God a "fall" or a "sin". jar writes:
How did the serpent help Adam and Eve? He got them kicked out of the garden! But beyond that, in the Garden of Eden the serpent figure is not predatory, tells the truth and actually helps Adam and Eve.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
You only addressed half of what I said. How can becoming more like God be considered a "fall"? ringo writes:
The sin wasn't becoming more like God. The sin was the direct disobedience of God, and the desire to make oneself like God (c.f. Is 14:12-17). 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
jar writes:
Correct; Paul made no direct reference to these.
First, Paul made no reference to Isaiah or to the Tower of Babel story jar writes:
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.
so those are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the concept of original sin can be supported. jar writes:
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."
Second, what you say makes absolutely no sense.
kbertsche writes:
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. 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.jar writes:
Correct.
God never says anything that in any way says that knowing right from wrong is in any way a sin.jar writes:
Yes, but banishment WAS a secondary effect of their disobedience. If they had not disobeyed, they would not have been banished.
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.jar writes:
Correct; I see this as an unsupported straw-man position. 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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
I have not claimed this. I don't see where the text implies it. I don't see a need to address it.
You only addressed half of what I said. How can becoming more like God be considered a "fall"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
So there was no "fall". Good. That's a start. ringo writes:
I have not claimed this. I don't see where the text implies it. You only addressed half of what I said. How can becoming more like God be considered a "fall"? The next obvious question is: How can an action that makes one better - i.e. more God like - be considered a sin? How can a desire to be better be a sin? "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes: Not what I said. kbertsche writes:
So there was no "fall". Good. That's a start.
ringo writes:
I have not claimed this. I don't see where the text implies it. You only addressed half of what I said. How can becoming more like God be considered a "fall"? To rephrase and clarify: I have not claimed, nor do I see where the text (either Genesis or Romans) implies that becoming more like God is considered to be a "fall" or a "sin". Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
kbertsche writes: 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.
jar writes: 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. And I have never seen a good explanation as to why one would need to know not to disobey one authority figure over another authority figure ... in order to disobey either. I mean, it seems to me that disobedience simply involves not doing what someone tells you. Quite where the need to know you shouldn't disobey is required I can't quite figure out. Any ideas jar? Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Quite where the need to know you shouldn't disobey is required I can't quite figure out.
If someone didn't know that you shouldn't disobey, then it would be completely unjustified to punish them for it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024