Original Sin

[buyeye]

You are blaming Adam and Eve for being gullible? For not being able to see through a lie (or at least a twisting of the truth) BEFORE they had consumed fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Really?... Seriously? You don't see the flaw in that argument here?



A really convoluted and silly one.



FTFY

Porch this prolly the last time I respond to you because your debate style is childish and tries to ridicule rather than attempt to discuss the topic like an adult.

This is a scripture that says that the first humans were well aware of the consequences of not following Gods command:
genesis 2:17'17But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.”

This scripture tells us that man was well informed but deliberately acted against forewarning.
Genesis 3:1-5
'1Now the serpent proved to be the most cautious of all the wild beasts of the field that Jehovah God had made. So it began to say to the woman: “Is it really so that God said YOU must not eat from every tree of the garden?” 2At this the woman said to the serpent: “Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. 3But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.’” 4At this the serpent said to the woman: “YOU positively will not die. 5For God knows that in the very day of YOUR eating from it YOUR eyes are bound to be opened and YOU are bound to be like God, KNOWING good and bad.”

Now porch I have given you proof of what I based my arguement on , what do you base yours on?

[buyeye]

God created the world and man but when man sinned all hell broke loose so he brought about a flood. A few genuine people were saved and then went bad so he sent his Son to die on the cross for us and still there is trouble in the land of confusion SO WHAT NEXT??? Two strikes already and we still no closer to a peaceful world.

ISAIAH 43:18 "Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past. Yet we are all born into the sins of our fathers??? Something is not right here.

Good point wayne about the two strikes , from secular knowlegde it suggests that's all she wrote in chances(or second chances).

[daveza]

This is a scripture that says that the first humans were well aware of the consequences of not following Gods command:
genesis 2:17'17But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.”

So everyone born before 00 AD is in hell ?

[RazedInBlack]

The only thing thats plain and simple in this debate is your irrational hatred of religion,not our fault your preacher abused you when you were young.If thats not true then you certainly make it seem so.

You wanna talk rationally then lets do so but if you want to attack like a little kid on steroids then be prepared to get snide comments back at ya bud.

Ok, you cannot discern an attack from a plain simple statement so "little kid on steroids" attitude you adopt assume my stance is because of religious abuse? LMAO!

[Arthur]

God created the world and man but when man sinned all hell broke loose so he brought about a flood. A few genuine people were saved and then went bad so he sent his Son to die on the cross for us and still there is trouble in the land of confusion SO WHAT NEXT??? Two strikes already and we still no closer to a peaceful world.

ISAIAH 43:18 "Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past. Yet we are all born into the sins of our fathers??? Something is not right here.

Original sin is not a personal sin, where blame is attached. There is no guilt (culpa) for us.

Perhaps an analogy helps: If I recklessly gamble away all income and I and the family end up homeless on the streets, the kids suffer for the consequences of my delict/wrong. They are innocent of my crime, but nevertheless suffer harm in consequence. This arises from the very nature of human interrelatedness, and it rooted in biology (hence the physical transmission).

The word "sin" is (like so many others) equivocal, ie it has several meanings, depending on the context.

Damage has a way of travelling down the generations. Original sin is the 'ancient damage' to our human natures that we all unavoidable inherit.

Now you might think it's a useless doctrine, but without it one geta into very serious and ultimately unresolvable problems about the nature of God.

Without the doctrine of Original Sin, God becomes a capricious monster-god who rules whimsically over his poor puppet-pawns. He inflicts pain and suffering as he wills, without explanation, rhyme or reason. A slave-owner like allah. Such a god is to be emphatically rejected as a pure nonsense. It is profoundly incompatible with the historical Christian (ie Catholic) view of a God who so loved the world that He entered into it personally, and took its suffering on himself. The historical and authentic Christian view is of a God who is so inexpressibly beautiful and loving that even the slightest reduction in our humanity is appalling and deeply regrettable. His whole "logic" is pure love that we Christians say not only that God loves (ie as an action or an attribute) but that in a real sense He in fact is love, that it is the primary ontological truth about His being.

[RazedInBlack]

Without the doctrine of Original Sin, God becomes a capricious monster-god who rules whimsically over his poor puppet-pawns. He inflicts pain and suffering as he wills, without explanation, rhyme or reason. A slave-owner like allah. Such a god is to be emphatically rejected as a pure nonsense. it is profoundly incompatible with the historical Christian view of a God who so loved the world that He entered into it personally, and took its suffering on himself.

Arthur, even with the doctrine of Original Sin, he's still 'a capricious monster-god who rules whimsically over his poor puppet-pawns".

[porchrat]

Porch this prolly the last time I respond to you because your debate style is childish and tries to ridicule rather than attempt to discuss the topic like an adult.

Sure I laugh and joke but it isn't meant to be spiteful. At no point have I insulted you or anything. This is my honest opinion. If you don't like it and don't want your feelings hurt then by all means put me on ignore. Just don't make your problem my problem.

This is a scripture that says that the first humans were well aware of the consequences of not following Gods command:
genesis 2:17'17But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.”

Sure they knew they would die but without the knowledge of good and evil how can you not be gullible? You have no knowledge of the concept of a lie then how do you expect someone to not fall for it. Kind of like blaming a kid when he gets hustled.

This scripture tells us that man was well informed but deliberately acted against forewarning.
Genesis 3:1-5
'1Now the serpent proved to be the most cautious of all the wild beasts of the field that Jehovah God had made. So it began to say to the woman: “Is it really so that God said YOU must not eat from every tree of the garden?” 2At this the woman said to the serpent: “Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. 3But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.’” 4At this the serpent said to the woman: “YOU positively will not die. 5For God knows that in the very day of YOUR eating from it YOUR eyes are bound to be opened and YOU are bound to be like God, KNOWING good and bad.”

So once again the serpent lied, committed evil. Without having eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil how was Eve to know that the serpent was lying?

Now porch I have given you proof of what I based my arguement on , what do you base yours on?

Logic. Without knowledge of good and evil you cannot see through a lie because you have no concept of falsehoods... which are supposed to be evil. Heck until they chowed from that tree they didn't even realise being naked was shameful. They didn't even know there was any other way to be. So you accept that logic but expect them to know what a lie is in the same breath. This doesn't strike me as being very logical.

[Arthur]

So everyone born before 00 AD is in hell ?

Simply answer: no.
But what do you mean by hell? What do you think "heaven" is? And if you think it's pie-in-the-sky nonsense, what do think Christians understand by these terms? You at least need to know that before we can have a halfway sensible discussion, otherwise we end up hurling meaningless sentences, passing like ships in the night.

[daveza]

Simply answer: no.
But what do you mean by hell?

So what happened to the souls of all those prior to 00 AD ?

Hell - the absence of God.

[buyeye]

Sure I laugh and joke but it isn't meant to be spiteful. At no point have I insulted you or anything. This is my honest opinion. If you don't like it and don't want your feelings hurt then by all means put me on ignore. Just don't make your problem my problem.



Sure they knew they would die but without the knowledge of good and evil how can you not be gullible? You have no knowledge of the concept of a lie then how do you expect someone to not fall for it. Kind of like blaming a kid when he gets hustled.



So once again the serpent lied, committed evil. Without having eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil how was Eve to know that the serpent was lying?



Logic. Without knowledge of good and evil you cannot see through a lie because you have no concept of falsehoods... which are supposed to be evil. Heck until they chowed from that tree they didn't even realise being naked was shameful. They didn't even know there was any other way to be. So you accept that logic but expect them to know what a lie is in the same breath. This doesn't strike me as being very knowledgeable.

Ok porch I see where you base your arguement on , so I will take our debate there .

When raising a child a parent tells the child don't put your hand in the fire for you surely burn and you will also know hot from cold. Now a stranger comes along saying that the parent lied about fire burnig you but does not want you know what hot and cold feels like.

The lie was actually conviencing them that they didn't already know good from bad where they already did . Following your parents guidance is good but doing the opposite is bad.

I tried a logical arguement just for you Porch.

[Arthur]

This is a scripture that says that the first humans were well aware of the consequences of not following Gods command:
genesis 2:17'17But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.”
Sure they knew they would die but without the knowledge of good and evil how can you not be gullible? You have no knowledge of the concept of a lie then how do you expect someone to not fall for it. Kind of like blaming a kid when he gets hustled.

Porch, you are quoting modern English translations and not understanding the rich history and meanings in the words used in the Genesis account. I can grant that in modern English this all sounds so ridiculous. But we need to be aware of our modern language and assumptions and not read them back into the ancient texts, for that is scholarly folly as you well know. There are ways to parse these texts and unpack their meanings into modern English in a way that makes deep sense.

As an example, let's take the word "know" as in "knowledge of good and evil". The ancient authors did not use this in a post-Kantian sense as we do today (obviously). As used in the ANE it had a range of very rich cognate meanings, associations, and uses. For example, Adam "knew" his wife Eve. That also means he has sex with her. In our Cartesian world knowledge refers to a cerebral activity or state, a rationation. But even our English has echoes and remnants of a much richer meaning that once attached to this word. And it is these meanings we need to recover, which is why historical-critical methods of literary research can be so valuable.

In classical Athens and the ANE (Ancient Near East), knowledge also included the notion of "apprehending, "grasping" or "embracing" the essence" or a thing (amongst others), and that conferred a degree of "power" or "control" over the thing. (Hence Plato's "Know Thyself", as also Virgil on the Gates of the Afterlife) When you see this you know why Adam "knew" his wife. It means a lot more than just he had a accurate idea of who she was, or a euphemism for his copulation.

Today we still say "knowledge is power" but this is a faint of echo Euripides, Eristasthones and Plato. The biblical phrase "knowledge of good and evil" is used the sense of not only "know" as in 'apprehend the data', but also in the sense that somehow they also had 'power' over good and evil, ie that they could decide for themselves what is good and what is evil. In other words, this ancient use of "knowledge" means more specifically, the Deceiver said that they would gain the power to decide what is good and what is evil without reference to God, ie without reference to the Ultimate Source and Origin of Reality. In other words, this ancient use means they were claiming the right to determine what is good and what is bad -- God might regard lying as bad, but that just true for Him and is God's own local opinion. In other words, this form of "knowledge is power" means that morality become relative and is purely determined by me. That is a deep rebellion against the objective order of reality as created and represented by God. It is this that enables all sorts of horror, for everything is relativized. It is this same "knowledge" of good and evil that allows Nazis to determine that the killing of Jews is acceptable, or that the wrongfulness of racial discrimination say is merely a local preference.

The whole religious worldview is premised on the belief that many and perhaps most aspects of reality and especially of morality are not in essence a human construct, but that there is an objective order of reality independent of your will or mine. It is our task to discover the truths of reality, to use all creation according to the rules of right reason (ie the Mind of God), and labour to realise our ultimate potential, which is know and to love in an uncontaminated way to the fullest limit of our capacity and potential, each according to his nature.

[falcon786]

Ok, you cannot discern an attack from a plain simple statement so "little kid on steroids" attitude you adopt assume my stance is because of religious abuse? LMAO!

Lets look at your responses below to other members who have done no wrong to you yet so much hate for them and their beliefs,the only logical conclusion i can come to is indeed that has possibly happened to you in your past.
Many here and all around us don't believe in religion or like religion but most of those people are tolerant as no point in criticizing intolerance and then doing the same ,not preaching open HATRED like you,you need help seriously buddy before it overtakes your life.

I don't lose sleep over Original Sin and its more for xtians and their ****!

Arthur, even with the doctrine of Original Sin, he's still 'a capricious monster-god who rules whimsically over his poor puppet-pawns".

[porchrat]

OK Arthur your explanation sounds promising but it is still a little murky.

Are you saying that before they chowed from the tree they understood the concept of lying? The concept of improper dress (being naked is indecent)?

[porchrat]

Ok porch I see where you base your arguement on , so I will take our debate there .

When raising a child a parent tells the child don't put your hand in the fire for you surely burn and you will also know hot from cold. Now a stranger comes along saying that the parent lied about fire burnig you but does not want you know what hot and cold feels like.

The lie was actually conviencing them that they didn't already know good from bad where they already did . Following your parents guidance is good but doing the opposite is bad.

I tried a logical arguement just for you Porch.

Much appreciated

If they already knew good from bad then what was the purpose of the Tree? If they already knew good from bad why were they naked when being naked is indecent? Why when they chowed from the tree did they suddenly realise they were naked and that that was indecent if they already knew this before chowing down on the fruit?

EDIT: BTW following your parents guidance is not always good. Had my father followed the guidance of his parents for example he would be a racist. I hardly regard that as good. You have to at some point think for yourself. Better yet always think for yourself.

[waynegohl]

Did God not tell Eve that she will experience pain at childbirth for what she has done? If the flood wiped the earth clean of sin leaving a righteous family to survive AND THEN sending his Son to die on the cross for our sins then surely painful childbirth should be a thing of the past which it is not.