Importance of Original Sin

i got here late and haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if i'm a little off track here. but perhaps you're putting the card before the horse. perhaps the answer to question is the reason people consider the book nonsense. or perhaps the inability to provide a good answer for hard questions like these.but, instead of arguing that point, i'd like to argue another: the book's not nonsense. your presentation and reading of it is. because here's the answer:

quote:

---

"blasphemy! for you to do such a thing! to kill the innocent with the wicked, so that the innocent are like the wicked. blasphemy! will the judge of all the earth not do justice?"

​

-- abraham, genesis 18:25.

---

my own rendering, because the standard english "that be far from thee" really doesn't portray the weight of abraham charging yahweh with חָלִלָה, "sacrilege". here, abraham is charging yahweh with violating some objective morality -- that killing innocent people for the sake of punishing the wicked is unjust -- and yahweh agrees. similarly:

quote:

---

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24:16)

---

it is a pretty common concept that it's not just to punish someone else for another person's sin, particularly if the wage of that sin is death. the torah abides by this notion of justice. similarly, the torah also considers child sacrifice abhorrent.those are the answers the bible has for the question why it's moral to punish children mankind for the sin of adam. the answer is that says the opposite. i'll just sit here and wait for you to agree with what the bible says now.

ah, okay, so you're not necessarily defending christian theology? okay, so spiritual death -- like the concept of original sin -- is a no go? the one where abraham accuses god of blasphemy for wanting to kill the innocent along with the wicked? and god agrees with abraham that this would be wrong? then why is there no hint that the authors are really talking about spiritual concepts, instead of physical ones? when yahweh command israel to go kill all the ammorities and hittites and such, was he talking about making them spiritually dead, or physically dead?you just don't even get this concept until the new testament. most of old testament lacks even the concept of a spiritual world, or an afterlife. do you see jews today talking about heaven or hell? their books don't contain those concepts.

we do. and in fact, if you back it up a bit, you see a god who seems to feel guilty about doing this, and brings it to a a lowly human being for answers. "should i keep this hidden from abraham?" he asks. i think, in some regards, yahweh wants abraham to talk him out of it. well, no. christians tend to supply an incredibly simplistic, black-box idea of god to their readings of the text, but yahweh just isn't so simple, especially not in the J document, where this portion comes from. J's yahweh is dynamic, conflicted, fallible, and at the same time intensely human and utterly foreign.previous to this part of the text, yahweh had let a murderer go free. is causing more death the appropriate punishment for someone that caused death? this is a legitimate and difficult moral and ethical question, and at first, yahweh doesn't seem to have a good answer for it. in fact, he goes the other way. he protects the murder from vengeance. is revenge just? hard to say, right?from there, at some point he gets frustrated and rage quits. yahweh decides that making mankind was a mistake, and kills everyone. men, women, children. everyone, because he sees everyone as wicked. but noah, noah he likes. i think it is utterly impossible to view the story of lot and sodom in any context other than noah and the flood. they are both single familial units pulled out from a massive disaster as god metes out his wrath on the wicked. but look at what yahweh says after the flood: "i promise i won't do that again." clearly, he regrets that action, and that i think is why he's bringing this problem to abraham.it is not so simple as "there are wicked, and the wicked must die." J is painstakingly establishing ancient jewish morals and ethics, by exploring the results of injustice, even at the hands of yahweh himself. the reason for this is that it is the argument that is the foundation for the cornerstone of ancient jewish ethics, the mosaic covenant. the law. why do you think these stories are in a book that is called "the law"?instead, we are given a series of questions. "should the wicked die?" and "should the wicked die at any cost?" and here, "at what cost should the wicked die?" and it is important to consider this text in logical progression of those questions. it is absolutely not as simple as "god is the opposite of evil", particularly not in a text that has "knowledge of good and evil" being a quality that makes people like god. no, i don't either. i don't think romans necessarily represents old testament theology very well, but it doesn't say that either. not my intention; i was quoting scripture to disprove dogmatic misreadings of scripture. here's the thing, though. in that passage above, what standard is abraham using to judge that god is immoral? god is clearly not the standard for morality in this text. morality is external, possibly objective standard that god does not always live up to. i recognize that this is blasphemy to most christians, but that's what's actually in the bible. yahweh himself says in others texts in the bible (which admittedly have slightly different theologies) that he plans to do evil, or that he creates evil, etc. the idea that "it is moral because god commands it" is a completely foreign concept to ancient judaism, possibly injected by later christian authors. it does not fit very well with what's in the old testament. well, without getting into the biological, evolutionary reasons we have morality, and the neurological aspects of how it operates (seriously, look this stuff up, it's fascinating)... are you saying that you use god to answer basic moral questions, and that without someone telling you right from wrong, you wouldn't know the difference?i don't suspect that's your argument. so let me pitch your question back to you: how do you determine whether or not something is moral?

probably, yes. the text doesn't actually say. my implication is that the text does not support an idea of god being inherently, absolutely moral, and being the basis for that morality. tell me, if you click an ad on the internet that says you won a car, but you don't get a car, is that a hint that you won a spiritual car?if this question sounds like nonsense, that's because it is. "spiritual car" is a nonsense concept. similarly, "spiritual death" is a nonsense concept in the context of the old testament, specifically in genesis 2 and 3. you need only look back one chapter to find that it is the "spirit" (the breath of god, these are the same word) that makes man physically alive. if adam died spiritually, he would be dead physically as well. without that spirit, he is merely dust of the ground. yes. read the bible closely; he shows up physically several times.is your implication that god is not able to act in, or appear in the real world? that god is not real? because that would be interesting. defining god is a little tricky. perhaps that's why he chose a name for himself that simply expresses that he exists ("yahweh" is a peculiar conjugation of the verb "to be"), and when asked this question by moshe, he says, אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, "i am that i am."but where does god reside? that one's easier. he has a throne on top of heaven, which in the old testament and possibly the new is a physical place. genesis 1 describes ancient israelite cosmology, and heaven is the solid object that keeps the primordial ocean out of the skies. during the exodus, yahweh resides with israel, physically leading them out of egypt as a pillar of smoke by day, and a pillar of fire by night. when they are wandering in the desert, yahweh resides for a bit at mount horeb or sinai, where he speaks to moshe, delivers him the law, and even lets moshe see him once or twice. when they build the tabernacle, and then the temple in jerusalem, yahweh resides in the inner sanctum of the temple.this metaphysical, spiritual world concept of god doesn't really come about until that temple is destroyed. because... where was yahweh? no, the old testament is about 60 of their books. either way, you should read it sometime. i do not think you have read the part of the old testament that come before this, nevermind the parts that come after. as i wrote above to raphael, you absolutely have to understand this in context: yahweh is wrestling with the concepts of morality and ethics. it is extremely wise to consult others in this, even for a being that is effectively omnipotent. in several prior stories he reacts harshly one way or the other, and bargaining -- a middle, moderate route -- is new territory for yahweh. in genesis 4, he protects a murderer from retribution. in genesis 6, he kills nearly all life on earth for the sake of the sinners. which route is the most just? justice is always a bargain, and it is an extremely progressive idea that we should debate the point about what degree of error is acceptable in the pursuit of justice.and yes, "error" is the right word. is it not within yahweh's power to kill only the sinners, and leave sodom standing? what does abraham benefit from it?no, abraham is bargaining for abraham's benefit. he's trying to protect his nephew lot. yahweh is his opponent in this debate, not his partner. it may be silly in your mind, but it's a strong implication of what the text actually says. why else would he bring it to abraham? did yahweh consult noah about the flood? did yahweh consult adam and chavah about their son qayin? did he consult anyone about babel?Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

in other words, this is a concept only added by the new testament, and not present in the old. okay.

that's not exactly my argument. but he is plainly accusing god of injustice.the humble utterances are clearly because he is afraid of yahweh, and to soften the blow of the argument he is about to make: that yahweh himself has spoken blasphemy. because you are reading it in a translation, like every one i've read, that softens the blow further."far be it from you" is חָלִלָה. this is the hebrew word for ritual desecration. it is not a word used softly. it's used a bit like this:

quote:

---

And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods; (Joshua 24:16)

---

for things that are serious matters, like breaking the first commandment. normally things that god himself has forbidden as abominations. and this is what abraham is charging yahweh with. that was, i think, what dawn bertot was saying. but i am neither a "new atheist", nor am i putting words into the mouth of abraham. that is simply what abraham said, "חָלִלָה לְּךָ", that god was desecrating himself.

in fact, the word means "wind". most modern translations translate it as such:

quote:

---

...and a wind from God sweeping over the water...

---

the concepts are similar because it is the act of breathing that makes something alive. the two (though not in this verse) are linguistically tied. and yet, you offer not counter argument or evidence. where in the old testament does yahweh appear in a fluffy spiritual sense? every where i've read has him show up viscerally and powerfully: voices booming from the heavens or the mountains, or sometimes bodily, in front of moses and aaron, or at mamre to abraham, etc. the spiritual concept is newer, and old testament authors were trying to convince their readers that yahweh -- who lived in the temple -- was real. you couldn't see him because he was in the temple, not because he like, lived in our hearts or some other silly nonsense. so, god is not a jealous god? or he is? and has human qualities, like a physical body, too? are these aspects of his character, or not? abraham does not benefit, and neither did yahweh. abraham was supposed to intercede on behalf of his son, just as he did on behalf of his nephew. he was supposed to stand up to yahweh, and tell yahweh that he was wrong to ask this because his son was innocent. abraham failed, and yahweh lost a valued resource in the process. it's about more than god, it's about how god and israel are to relate, or how they will relate. israel, whose name literally means "fights with gods". do you suppose this is also an accident? yahweh chose israel, a "stiff-necked" people because they were stiff-necked and stubborn, and would fight for what was right even if yahweh himself was the opponent. it's a quality he seems to both lament and praise in his chosen people.

i only regret that you will not be able to come back and say so yourself.

yes, you can't be held to an agreement made long after you're dead. if yahweh does so, he is unreasonable, and unjust. the law is predicated on rescuing israel from egypt. but joseph was doing just fine there. sure he can, but you can't pretend that each new development was there all along. either he develops as he sees fit, or he is unchanging. choose one.in this case, adam couldn't have spiritually died because, to the old testament authors, the spirit was made him physically alive. spiritually dead is physically dead. spiritual death is a nonsense concept within the confines of genesis 2 and 3.did god retroactively change that?

inference. in this case, anyways. if the question is "does the text say that yahweh feels guilt?" within the context of the J source, the answer is a resounding yes. it does, in fact, say that in genesis 6. is it measurable? in this case, yahweh seem to be trying to find the best, most moral path. and this is a complicated thing, quite far from the simplistic notions of "whatever god says is just." instead, yahweh's inner dialog is externalized in a debate with abraham. is killing the wicked moral? and at what price? these are complicated moral issues, and i'm trying to use this text to demonstrate that at least one author of the bible actually treated this as a complex moral issue, far from the simplistic notions of "god said it, so it's right." kind of, yeah. i mean, it's better than some. he clearly is willing that some should die. in fact, he commands as such multiple times. and there is clearly darkness in him, too. i'll come back to that. perhaps your argument is less simplistic than others -- it does represent that yahweh is being pulled in two different directions here. so i will give you that. i'm just not sure it represents the nuance and complexity of the inner turmoil he must be going through in this chapter. rather, it's just culled from two different, simplistic theologies. it says,

quote:

---

יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא חֹשֶׁךְ
עֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם וּבוֹרֵא רָע
אֲנִי יְהוָה, עֹשֶׂה כָל-אֵלֶּה

​

i shape light and i create darkness
i make peace and i create evil
i am yahweh, and i do all these things

---

and

quote:

---

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ, לָדַעַת, טוֹב וָרָע

​

behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil!

---

and things like that. genesis 18 comes from a literary tradition that regards yahweh as dualistic, having both qualities contained within him. the quotes above come from a more recent monastic/wisdom tradition that regards god as wholly good -- even those apparently evil bits. they're not quite the same thing. i do not happen to subscribe to the idea that the bible -- a text written by and for humans -- is incomprehensible without some kind of magical, authoritative, spiritual aid. i see plenty of meaning, power, and beauty in the text without appeals to spirituality, and in fact vastly moreso since i have left the christian churches. that authority is generally used to enforce a pseudo-orthodox reading of the text that frequently denies or glosses over the important nuance, individuality, details, or real meaning of source texts. it does so because those meanings, particularly in the case of J here, are heterodox or even heresy to christian or even jewish churches. the idea that god should feel guilt is among them.indeed, this is part of the dogma we should do away with. we should come at the text with clear eyes and open minds, and fresh attention to the details therein whatever they may actually say, and not try to jam the text into what we think the holy spirit would appreciate. in fact, it precisely appeals such as these that have kept people in the dark for so long, regarding the contents of the bible. to tell us that our human brains are incapable of understanding words on a page is to allow another to stand in for those words, and tell you what they mean. whether that's "the holy spirit" or your local pastor, of what use is the bible? why not simply have that entity tell you the will of god, and cut out the middleman. this idea, that the common man was incapable of understanding the bible, is very literally what caused the dark ages. and printing copies of the bible in vulgar translations is what brought us out of it. i believe we are talking past each other here, as this is precisely the question that i am not begging, but asking outright: what standard is abraham using? because it's not god. how can yahweh be judged according to himself? remember that yahweh agrees with abraham on this matter. bingo. morality is biological, a very fiber of our being. one might argue that this is the tree of knowledge, but i don't especially want to get into that one. either way, abraham is born with it, and it's not handed down to him in a book by yahweh. it is, even if you think it originally came from yahweh, it is external to yahweh such that he can later be judged by it. the same standard anyone uses to judge anything as moral or immoral. at least, i would hope. i truly fear that there are people out there who actually think that morality and god are indistinguishable, such that you cannot question anything god commands, including some of the very worst things in the law. but i suspect that it is our external morality that keeps us from, say, stoning our neighbors for working on saturday, or for being hindu. most of read the text and don't really think "god said it, so it must be right, let's go kill some sabbath violators!" we think that killing our neighbors would be morally wrong and so we don't. i don't think you do. i hope you don't. because, as this text points out, god is not always just. and there is. which is why we have sociopaths. but there is evolutionary pressure to keep those folks to a minimum: they're bad for our in-group. the in-group/out-group model actually goes a fair towards explaining some of the contradictory morals of the old testament, in that it's a nearly universal trait among humans and in fact most other animals as well that killing our social or familial groups is a bad thing (they help you survive), but killing people outside of that group eliminates competition for food and resources. thus, "thou shalt not kill" and "except for the canaanites, kill as many of them as possible." it's why we care more about our friends and family than starving children in africa, or even genocide half way around the world. we get this kind of commonality because it is strongly selected for in the evolution of social animals. well, no. the general picture has be the sum of the details, not arrived at beforehand in spite of the details. now who's question begging? the details matter, and in this case, abraham has an external standard for morality that applies even to god, and god agrees with it.

quote:

---

30 This Godhis way is perfect;
the word of the Lord proves true;

---

i think that, rather than looking at a song of praise and submission and trying to view the entire bible through that lens, you should view these songs or praise through the lens of the entire bible. in this case, the way of god is perfect because of instances like these. because he expects his patriarchs, kings, and prophets to question him, and because he used these ethical quandaries to establish an impartial law.you have to remember to set aside the christian readings of the law, here. to a jewish person, the law is the ultimate gift, and an authority that supersedes god himself. it is a contract between yahweh and israel that binds both sides. not even god himself can break it, and if he does -- as he arguably did sending judah into exile -- you get texts like job questioning whether god is just. not too great. sorry, just calling it like i see it. as lewis black said, if you want to know what the old testament means, there are jews around you.though i'm not jewish myself, much of my above argument is strongly influenced by contemporary, secular jewish commentaries, notably dershowitz and bloom.

i think you are reading what you want to see into this particular metaphor.hearts of stone suggests people that are not empathetic. see, for instance, yahweh hardening the heart of pharaoh in exodus; he does not take pity on the israelites and let them go.a new spirit suggests that they have one already, not that they were born "spiritually dead". yahweh is saying that he will be there very lifeforce, their reason for existing. yes, it is. you are reading a very anachronistic meaning for "spirit" into the text. it simply does not treat the concept metaphysically. metaphorically, sure. metaphysically, no.

or rather, the author of J wants us, the readers, to understand the moral complexities for ourselves, and not just have them handed to us.as i think i wrote above, this process of laboriously establishing ethics (generally through ethical failures) is J's argument for the law of moses and why it is the ultimate blessing that yahweh gave his chosen people.

and look up how "spirit" is used in the old testament. set aside the references to god, and they're all things that are corporeal. and consider exodus 33 where moses see's yahweh backside, but not his face. or exodus 24, where moses, aaron, and seventy elders, you know, have a picnic with yahweh. he's pretty clear about wanting to hide himself for a few reasons, and i actually think those arguments are fairly good. but... someone does see him, and he is there in physical form.

because what you wrote is word salad.i called my response in another thread "breath and dust", because that is what the man is, in the bible. without the breath -- the spirit -- he is dust. a spiritually dead man is dust.

well, that's what i get for posting an actual scientific standpoint as an aside to a discussion on biblical exegesis. no, these are two separate points. the bible is not using evolutionary arguments anywhere. ever. they are incompatible ideas.the point was, originally, that abraham's standard of morality are not based entirely on yahweh, as they can be used to judge yahweh's actions. ie, there is no euthyphro dilemma in ancient judaism: things are right because they are right, not because god commands it, and god doesn't always command things that are right. no, because the question doesn't even make sense. if morality is the question of how you treat other living things, having no life is kind of like dividing by zero.the interesting thing is that even the law of moses is not a moral law defined from the beginnings of the universe (as much as you'd probably like to believe it is). it doesn't have much to do with morality (more like, civil society and religious laws that sometimes have moral justifications) and it was clearly (supposedly) given at a particular point in history.prior to that, what standards were there? what standard is abraham using in genesis 18 to judge yahweh? and if it's a corrupt human standard, why does yahweh agree? something like that. yes. but natural selection is a guiding process. in species that depend on social networks for survival, it's easy to see how not randomly killing members of the group is a beneficial trait, and how doing the opposite means you have no one to depend on for survival.