[Ed.] Original Sin?

[JanisChambers]

Hi,

I'll take a stab at it from a rational/logical point of view.

And I think I'll take a stab back.

A specific rule was set. It was not permitted to eat of the fruit that gives knowledge of what is good and bad. This privilege is one that God reserve to himself.



The rule given to them implies that they have freedom of thought and action, thus objections like "He should have known better" do not apply.
That rule also nullify your statement they where completely pure. If completely pure, no rule would be necessary.
Also, the fact they broke the one rule also invalidate the claim they where completely innocent.

Just because one is innocent does not mean they will do completely benign actions, it simply means they are ignorant to the result of their actions. If Adam and Eve were "pure" it really wouldn't have made any difference wither or not they had such temptations, it simply would have not worked. But they were innocent, without any internal guide of 'right' and 'wrong'.

Freedom of thought? Well yes they were not robots, but theirs was an unguided freedom. If they could conceive their actions as 'Good' or "Evil" then having a tree in the garden that taught it with it's consumption would have been moot.

Since, it's not well received to answer with speculations on God's motive, it's conversely not fair to question them.


As a Catholic, I will skip this question since it's largely an Evangelical type of question in which I am unfamiliar.

Oh? then what exactly was the point of Jesus' death in the Catholic viewpoint? I'm honestly curious.

The most important question. This knowledge is one that God reserves himself and that men stole by sinning.

But what is it ?

It is not Omniscience since we don't own it.
It is not moral discernments since it's illogical for God to refuse it to his reasonable creature.

Rather it's the faculty to decide for oneself what is good and evil and to live in accordance.
I cannot demonstrate this, but it is a reasonable proposition.

So in other words "God works in mysterious ways". I'm sorry but I am not satisfied with such types of answers. So you speculate on exactly what it was that Adan and Eve 'stole'. Well my argument actually goes before that moment. The state of mind Adam and Eve were in before the committed the sin. I still don't understand the idea of being 'pure' is this some mystical wellspring of automatic responses to given situations, and if so, where does this 'purity' come from? I want a process not just names.

"It is not moral discernments since it's illogical for God to refuse it to his reasonable creature. "

And I will agree with you in that, it isn't logical at all. But exactly what was the basis for those discernments?

The 10 commandments are all moral truths that can be discerned without God's intervention. It could easily be supposed that murder was known to be wrong before the 10 Commandments as much that it is true that murders continued to occur after the 10 Commandments.

Viewed like this, the notion that the 10 Commandments would have been helpful to Abel - or anyone else - is an oversimplification.

They can be? Well then that leaves the point for even writing them down meaningless. So then what was the point of the ten commandments since it did then come so naturally to the likes of Adan and Eve, and son Cain. Was there some transitional point in humanity that made the Ten Commandments useless in the time shortly after the fall and well after the flood?

 

[Cactus Wren]

The 10 commandments are all moral truths that can be discerned without God's intervention.

How is it possible to discern, without the "intervention" either of a god named Jehovah or of someone claiming to speak for or in the name of a god named Jehovah, that you are to have no gods before the one named Jehovah?

How is it possible to discern, without the "intervention" of a specific god or of someone claiming to speak for or in the name of god, the "moral truth" that one specific day out of seven is to be set aside for rest?

 

[OSS 117]

Hello Janice

Just because one is innocent does not mean they will do completely benign actions, it simply means they are ignorant to the result of their actions. If Adam and Eve were "pure" it really wouldn't have made any difference wither or not they had such temptations, it simply would have not worked. But they were innocent, without any internal guide of 'right' and 'wrong'.

Freedom of thought? Well yes they were not robots, but theirs was an unguided freedom. If they could conceive their actions as 'Good' or "Evil" then having a tree in the garden that taught it with it's consumption would have been moot.

There is one point which I think you did not pick up in my previous answer.

The fruit they consumed provided the ability to define right and wrong. There is a difference between discerning right from wrong and defining what is right and wrong. It is the ladder that God prevented Adam and Eve from. We will have a major failure to communicate if that point is not agreed on.

Again, it flows logically that if God explicitly forbidden to take from that tree, it is implied that they can discern right from wrong.

Oh? then what exactly was the point of Jesus' death in the Catholic viewpoint? I'm honestly curious.

I don't understand your question 3. Sorry.
I'd be glad to discuss the question you raised above, but not as a sub-topic of this thread.

Well my argument actually goes before that moment. The state of mind Adam and Eve were in before the committed the sin. I still don't understand the idea of being 'pure' is this some mystical wellspring of automatic responses to given situations, and if so, where does this 'purity' come from? I want a process not just names.

It is interesting to investigate the matter. But the actual account of the Genesis provides very little to work with rationally. Only thing that can be discerned with certainty is...

• They had free will
• They had the capacity to disobey God fully knowing it was not permitted.

If speculations on their state of mind becomes a road block at some stages, it is the speculation that is at fault, not the account itself which is very simple.

"It is not moral discernments since it's illogical for God to refuse it to his reasonable creature. "

And I will agree with you in that, it isn't logical at all. But exactly what was the basis for those discernments?

I don't know ! I'm not sure I can perfectly answer the question for myself, let alone for Adam & Eve, which I think never existed in the first place.

They can be? Well then that leaves the point for even writing them down meaningless. So then what was the point of the ten commandments since it did then come so naturally to the likes of Adan and Eve, and son Cain. Was there some transitional point in humanity that made the Ten Commandments useless in the time shortly after the fall and well after the flood?

Not meaningless... if you would have asked simply: "Why where the 10 commandments not introduced earlier ?" I would have simply answered "I don't know."
I would suggest that a Jew would have more insight on this matter.

My answer was simply to defuse the "zinger" included in your question which I think amounted to an oversimplification of the matter.

 

[OSS 117]

How is it possible to discern, without the "intervention" either of a god named Jehovah or of someone claiming to speak for or in the name of a god named Jehovah, that you are to have no gods before the one named Jehovah?

How is it possible to discern, without the "intervention" of a specific god or of someone claiming to speak for or in the name of god, the "moral truth" that one specific day out of seven is to be set aside for rest?

Hi,

I'm not implying of course that revealed religions can be figured out if you think hard enough, and without the implied revelation.

What I do mean is that the notion of right or wrong is pretty universal at the core and is the same irrespective of religion. It is the basis by which atheist have moral values just as well then religious people.

 

[Vox Humana]

A very good question indeed.

Keeping this logical and devout of theological arguments, I'd say that through self-determination, Adam and Eve had the choice to sin or not.
As for us, in spite of self-determination, because of our fallen nature, we cannot help ourselves from sinning.

But here's the problem; how do people without sin choose to start sinning? I mean, how was the serpent able to tempt them? Normally one would say that he appealed to their lust for power/greed/selfishness, but in this case those character flaws didn't exist.

We can talk later about how the serpent got to be such an evil bugger...

 

[OSS 117]

But here's the problem; how do people without sin choose to start sinning? I mean, how was the serpent able to tempt them? Normally one would say that he appealed to their lust for power/greed/selfishness, but in this case those character flaws didn't exist.

We can talk later about how the serpent got to be such an evil bugger...

Hi,

I don't want to over simplify, but it's not useful to over complicate either.

The motivation to sin, or the enabler is the temptation to do so, as represented by the serpent. It has an important place enough in the narrative to imply that whatever state of being Adam and Eve was, that they where subject to seduction and temptation.

If you read any other story and the character pours himself a glass of Brandy at work, you will make certain reasonable assumptions on their personality. This is no different.

You are making assumptions on the state they where that is not supported by the narrative. In keeping with the logical approach that was suggested, this is not reasonable.

As I wrote before, the difference between us and them, is that they had in their power the possibility not to sin, while we do not.

 

[JanisChambers]

Hello Janice



There is one point which I think you did not pick up in my previous answer.

The fruit they consumed provided the ability to define right and wrong. There is a difference between discerning right from wrong and defining what is right and wrong. It is the ladder that God prevented Adam and Eve from. We will have a major failure to communicate if that point is not agreed on.

Failure in communication may be the best way to put it. I do not understand what contrast you are trying to imply. The name of the tree they ate from was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The name wasn't the "Tree of the ability to define what good and evil is". It would seem to me you are adding that context in yourself. What passage of the bible implies they had the ability of define good and evil by eating of the fruit?

Again, it flows logically that if God explicitly forbidden to take from that tree, it is implied that they can discern right from wrong.

Again, without the understanding of right and wrong, aka the knowledge of, that statement is meaningless. The equivalent is like saying "He knows how to drive a car, he just doesn't know what a car is"

I don't understand your question 3. Sorry.
I'd be glad to discuss the question you raised above, but not as a sub-topic of this thread.


It is interesting to investigate the matter. But the actual account of the Genesis provides very little to work with rationally. Only thing that can be discerned with certainty is...

• They had free will
• They had the capacity to disobey God fully knowing it was not permitted.

If speculations on their state of mind becomes a road block at some stages, it is the speculation that is at fault, not the account itself which is very simple.



I don't know ! I'm not sure I can perfectly answer the question for myself, let alone for Adam & Eve, which I think never existed in the first place.



Not meaningless... if you would have asked simply: "Why where the 10 commandments not introduced earlier ?" I would have simply answered "I don't know."
I would suggest that a Jew would have more insight on this matter.

My answer was simply to defuse the "zinger" included in your question which I think amounted to an oversimplification of the matter.

Well, were just going to have it agree to disagree. Some of my questions I made you dodged, and in some ways your logic doesn't really follow. I think it is very important to speculate on the state of mind Adam and Eve were in before their 'sin'. For one even calling it a sin is unjustified IMO, and even if it really didn't exist doesn't really matter. I obviously don't think it existed, but it is a story that is principle to the idea that we are being who are on th very onset of our first ancestors evil beings that can only find salvation though the blood of Christ. The doctrine of Origional sin, ultimately, is the keystone of the whole dogma, without the need to magically wash away the first sin, the point of needing 'forgiveness' or 'redemption' is moot.

Either way, this debate will only go in circles I fear. Be well friend.

 

[JanisChambers]

Oh, and one last thing. The idea that Adam and Eve had Free will is also a very moot point. A baby has free will with he/she lays hands on a hot stove. Could we then punish the baby for it's foolishness, or trust the child will learn from it's mistakes? One would think the folly it's own punishment, no need to add your own or even punish generations to come.

 

[JanisChambers]

Hi,

I don't want to over simplify, but it's not useful to over complicate either.

The motivation to sin, or the enabler is the temptation to do so, as represented by the serpent. It has an important place enough in the narrative to imply that whatever state of being Adam and Eve was, that they where subject to seduction and temptation.

If you read any other story and the character pours himself a glass of Brandy at work, you will make certain reasonable assumptions on their personality. This is no different.

You are making assumptions on the state they where that is not supported by the narrative. In keeping with the logical approach that was suggested, this is not reasonable.

As I wrote before, the difference between us and them, is that they had in their power the possibility not to sin, while we do not.

So... we *must* sin on any given situation. If we help an old lady cross the street, unlike Adam, we absolutely kick her in the bum? And where does free will add in to current humanity again. If we *must* sin, our will isn't free now is it?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Sorry, haven't read the whole thread, but.....

I don't think it makes any sense to speak of Adam and Eve "sinning" when they ate the fruit. Theirs was an action. Sin depends on knowledge of good and evil and choosing evil. They had no knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit and so could not have committed sin (even in disobedience). Disobedience could have had no meaning for them as sin.

What the story tries to suggest, from a Christian perspective, is that Adam and Eve introduced sin into the world and Paul's view of it was that sin was a metaphysical property of the world that we inhabit because of that action. It isn't necessary to call what Adam and Eve did "sin", only that sin was introduced with the knowledge of good and evil.

Paul took it the extra step forward of saying that sin became a metaphysical property of the universe because he had to do so. There was no other way that he could make sense of Jesus' sacrifice than to believe that sin was an integral part of the world. If we could save ourselves by following the Law, then Jesus only died for the weak minded who could not be bothered to follow the Law.

Since Jesus died on a tree (cross) and only the cursed die on a tree according to Jewish scripture it must be that Jesus assumed the sins of the world. Jesus must have been pure or he would not have been esteemed by God for resurrection. Paul thought he knew that Jesus was resurrected because he had seen Jesus in a vision on the road to Damascus. If Jesus was pure, then he must not have been a product of the human world -- hence God as the father and the immaculate conception of Mary.

 

[OSS 117]

Failure in communication may be the best way to put it. I do not understand what contrast you are trying to imply. The name of the tree they ate from was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The name wasn't the "Tree of the ability to define what good and evil is". It would seem to me you are adding that context in yourself. What passage of the bible implies they had the ability of define good and evil by eating of the fruit?

I thought we agreed that moral discernment was not what the Tree was about since it don't make sense. Then it need be something else.

"I" did not add the context myself. This issue has benefited from thousands of years in reflexion. There is little sense in completely blind sighting this.

There is nothing wrong to rethink it from ground up like you are doing either.

I think it is very important to speculate on the state of mind Adam and Eve were in before their 'sin'. For one even calling it a sin is unjustified IMO, and even if it really didn't exist doesn't really matter. I obviously don't think it existed, but it is a story that is principle to the idea that we are being who are on th very onset of our first ancestors evil beings that can only find salvation though the blood of Christ. The doctrine of Origional sin, ultimately, is the keystone of the whole dogma, without the need to magically wash away the first sin, the point of needing 'forgiveness' or 'redemption' is moot.

Be well friend.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. And good luck with that.

 

[OSS 117]

So... we *must* sin on any given situation. If we help an old lady cross the street, unlike Adam, we absolutely kick her in the bum? And where does free will add in to current humanity again. If we *must* sin, our will isn't free now is it?

Not at all.

The point is not that we sin in any given situation and at each waking hour.

The point is that a Christian, no matter how pious, cannot prevent himself from sinning. It's beyond his strength even with his full commitment and free will.

 

[OSS 117]

Oh, and one last thing. The idea that Adam and Eve had Free will is also a very moot point. A baby has free will with he/she lays hands on a hot stove. Could we then punish the baby for it's foolishness, or trust the child will learn from it's mistakes? One would think the folly it's own punishment, no need to add your own or even punish generations to come.

Again the same sour point. You are right, we will debate in circles.

I will argue again that Adam and Eve had moral discernment, which you are not inclined to accept.

Be well to !

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Again the same sour point. You are right, we will debate in circles.

I will argue again that Adam and Eve had moral discernment, which you are not inclined to accept.

Be well to !

How could they, logically, if they did not know good from evil?

 

[OSS 117]

How could they, logically, if they did not know good from evil?

Ich and Janice.

It cannot be moral discernment that was the fault in eating of the Fruit, since this cannot be denied to men, a creature of reason.

The fact there was no dilemma to discern yet -- other then obedience -- does not matter. The faculty is there - was there - and is healthy.

In issuing a warning not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, God relies on that discernment.

_____

What is wrong, that the Tree of Knowledge would have given them is the faculty of deciding for themselves what is good and what is evil. A declaration of moral sovereignty sorta speak that renounce their status of creature of God.

Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.
Is 5,20

 

[Skeptical Greg]

A more interesting question (IMHO) is how they could have committed the sin in the first place. If they lacked a sinful/fallen nature, what motivation did they have to disobey?

This really ends the discussion ..

Until they ate the fruit they had no knowledge good and evil .

So eating the fruit could not be a sin . Not the ' original ' sin, anyway ...

Presenting this fact is an excellent way to make believers squirm .


( Oh, I see we have someone squirming now .. )

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ich and Janice.

It cannot be moral discernment that was the fault in eating of the Fruit, since this cannot be denied to men, a creature of reason.

The fact there was no dilemma to discern yet -- other then obedience -- does not matter. The faculty is there - was there - and is healthy.

In issuing a warning not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, God relies on that discernment.

_____

What is wrong, that the Tree of Knowledge would have given them is the faculty of deciding for themselves what is good and what is evil. A declaration of moral sovereignty sorta speak that renounce their status of creature of God.

Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.
Is 5,20

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. While eating the fruit could be seen to create sin -- sin is not possible without knowledge of good and evil -- the act of eating the fruit cannot itself be sin because there could be no such thing as moral discernment without the knowledge of good and evil. What does moral discernment mean except "the ability to discern good from evil and decide a course of action based on this knowledge"?


ETA:

OK, now that I have traced your argument back, I must object for the same reason. This story is not about acquiring the ability to define right and wrong -- Adam and Eve suddenly created what was right and what was wrong, but their ability to figure it all out. It is knowledge of right and wrong/good and bad they they acquire.

Hence, when God walks through the garden they hide. Because they discover that they are naked and wanted to hide their nakedness from God. They could not previously see nakedness as wrong because they lacked the category for it to be right or wrong.

If you want to say that they created the category "naked is wrong", therefore "naked is wrong" is not one of God's laws. It is merely human convention. So, what was it that Ham did?

 

[OSS 117]

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. While eating the fruit could be seen to create sin -- sin is not possible without knowledge of good and evil -- the act of eating the fruit cannot itself be sin because there could be no such thing as moral discernment without the knowledge of good and evil. What does moral discernment mean except "the ability to discern good from evil and decide a course of action based on this knowledge"?

Throughout this discussion, I'm not particularly concerned with defining wither it was a sin or not. It was clearly a disobedient act done by a reasonable being, against it's authority.

It was not a sin as we understand it today, I'll concede that much with pleasure.

Do you suggest that God told Adam and Eve to not eat the Forbidden Fruit but they did not understand being so blissfully ignorant ?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Throughout this discussion, I'm not particularly concerned with defining wither it was a sin or not. It was clearly a disobedient act done by a reasonable being, against it's authority.

It was not a sin as we understand it today, I'll concede that much with pleasure.

Do you suggest that God told Adam and Eve to not eat the Forbidden Fruit but they did not understand being so blissfully ignorant ?

Oh, no, for the sake of the story they must understand that they are not to eat of the fruit.

So, the way the story works the original problem (we can call it sin from one point of view) is that sin consists of not doing the gods' will. Then when we know the difference between right and wrong, sin consists in doing wrong. But originally Adam and Eve could not have committed what we call sin. They introduced that into the world according to the story.

 

[OSS 117]

Oh, no, for the sake of the story they must understand that they are not to eat of the fruit.

So, the way the story works the original problem (we can call it sin from one point of view) is that sin consists of not doing the gods' will. Then when we know the difference between right and wrong, sin consists in doing wrong. But originally Adam and Eve could not have committed what we call sin. They introduced that into the world according to the story.

Agreed,

Now, there is a reason why I am harping on this moral discernment theme.

Through Janice questions, that started the whole thread, there was certain elements that suggested that moral discernment is against God's plan. For instance: "We do everything in our power to teach our children right from wrong, we carefully watch our children in their youth to make sure they do not harm themselves or harm others all in the hope they eventually take on responsibility in their actions.
So, why was the sin such a sin?"

Prior to their fall, moral discernment was not necessary, since there was no evil to defend against and everything was orderly. That being said, moral discernment was within their reach from the very fact they where intelligent. It was never wrong to be able of moral discernment, it was just wholly unnecessary and likely grapeled with notions that where foreign and made no sense.

The problem was for men to introduce their own moral judgment of what is right and wrong, thus breaking the balance. This is the true transgression of eating from the Tree of Knowledge.