[Ed.] Original Sin?

[OSS 117]

I dissagre with that whole heartedly. I still do not understand this "pure' or "perfect" state you claim they had, not to mention the story says absolutely nothing about such a state of mind and I challenge you to find it. Not that they were "without sin" but that they indeed could not sin. Of course if the bible did claim they could not sin, then that would be an instant conflict.

I do not claim they where perfect. Nor that they could not sin.

In same way good can be deduced by observing evil, life without original sin can be deduced by observing our fallen nature.

This does not make A&E perfect or pure, and free will always reserves the possibility of choosing to sin. The difference is that without our fallen nature, sin becomes a choice, rather then something we are afflicted of doing even against our best resolve.

Of course I write this from a Christian perspective, but should you adopt the same moral code then a Christian and choose to call it your ethics, you will still fail in living up to it even if you make it the goal of your life. As an atheist, you will call the fallen nature something else... Likely something like "I am only human". Agree ?

A. Adam and Eve were perfectly moral beings and so they shouldn't have been able to sin.

B. They were ignorant of good and evil (for which is contained in the fruit) and so could not be responsible for their own actions, like toddlers.

Whatever the way was God punished them extremely harsh

Please read my previous post with emphasis on consequence.
It will likely not convince you, but you may find it somewhere in you that my suggestion is in no way unreasonable.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You guys are just attributing waaay too much deep meaning into a story that was passed on for thousands of years before it was even written down. Even if that philosophical nuance was in the story at some point in time, it is unlikely to have retained the elements over thousands of years.

That would mean the original story didn't have such elements and someone added them in the first written version of Genesis or those elements of deeper symbolic meaning aren't there at all and you all are doing something akin to seeing the face of Jesus in a tortilla.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

"Genesis 2:17. But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death."

Seems clear and explicit enough to me.

The way forward against your argument is simply that A&E did not need to understand good or evil, since the consequence of their action is laid out clearly: For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

A few times already, Janice used the analogy of kids not knowing better. Quite often with kids, parents warn of consequence rather then educate on more complicated concepts to achieve the same mean.

Thus seems to be the case here also. Agree ?

But Satan told Eve differently. How was Eve supposed to know that Satan was lying?

 

[OSS 117]

But Satan told Eve differently. How was Eve supposed to know that Satan was lying?

Good question, and it seem like a variation of the same problem (lack of knowledge of good and evil would render her powerless in discerning a lie).

However this time, I don't need to defend against it. - Not to defend the stories integrity anyway. She was seduced by the serpents deceit. So it's reasonable to think that you are right, and that she had no way of knowing for sure on her own.

 

[Puppycow]

Saint Augustine is said to have answered such questions thusly:
"Before God created the Heavens and the Earth, He created Hell for people who ask impertinent questions, like you."

 

[Robin]

"Genesis 2:17. But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death."

Seems clear and explicit enough to me.

The way forward against your argument is simply that A&E did not need to understand good or evil, since the consequence of their action is laid out clearly: For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

A few times already, Janice used the analogy of kids not knowing better. Quite often with kids, parents warn of consequence rather then educate on more complicated concepts to achieve the same mean.

Thus seems to be the case here also. Agree ?

In that case it was not a law it was a warning. But you said that their fault was grave. What is the grievous fault in failing to heed a warning?

 

[OSS 117]

In that case it was not a law it was a warning. But you said that their fault was grave. What is the grievous fault in failing to heed a warning?

Hi Robin,

I'm not sure it makes much of a difference whether it was a law or a warning. You might agree it was a rather stern and ominous warning. Either way, disobedience was the fault.

I don't need to make the case that the fault was grave. It's implied clearly in the narrative from the harsh consequences.

St-Thomas Aquinas explores this first sin in some detail and goes further then seeing mere disobedience.
Question 163 article 1. Whether pride was the man's first sin ?

 

[Robin]

Hi Robin,

I'm not sure it makes much of a difference whether it was a law or a warning. You might agree it was a rather stern and ominous warning. Either way, disobedience was the fault.

You don't obey a warning. You heed a warning. If disobedience was the fault then that implies that it was not a warning but a command, rule, law or instruction, which simply leads me back to my original objection.

If it was a warning then the original sin was incaution.

 

[Robin]

And again, if the first sin was pride and A&E had no knowledge of Good and Evil, how were they expected to know that pride was wrong?

 

[OSS 117]

And again, if the first sin was pride and A&E had no knowledge of Good and Evil, how were they expected to know that pride was wrong?

I knew you'd say that.

But having lost myself in speculations earlier in the thread, I thought I'd stick with more traveled paths.

Also, so much is not defined in this discussion: Whether it's an historic event, an allegory, divinely inspired or not, amalgamated tale from previous stories etc... that in the end, it's difficult to discuss without a common frame of reference.

With that in mind, this discussion is likely to ambitious as skeptigirl suggested.

 

[Robin]

I knew you'd say that.

But having lost myself in speculations earlier in the thread, I thought I'd stick with more traveled paths.

Also, so much is not defined in this discussion: Whether it's an historic event, an allegory, divinely inspired or not, amalgamated tale from previous stories etc... that in the end, it's difficult to discuss without a common frame of reference.

With that in mind, this discussion is likely to ambitious as skeptigirl suggested.

However if Christianity were to be believed true, then there would be the gravest possible consequences for failing to accept the moral principle illustrated here - whatever it is.

 

[OSS 117]

However if Christianity were to be believed true, then there would be the gravest possible consequences for failing to accept the moral principle illustrated here - whatever it is.

To that, I would answer to read on the link I submitted from St-Thomas Aquinas who do not deem the original sin, gravely as I intuitively argued.

Article 3 addresses your point to an extent.

He is much more interesting then I anyway. I suggest reading him rather then me.

 

[Robin]

To that, I would answer to read on the link I submitted from St-Thomas Aquinas who do not deem the original sin, gravely as I intuitively argued.

Article 3 addresses your point to an extent.

He is much more interesting then I anyway. I suggest reading him rather then me.

You can pretty much assume that any link you give to Aquinas is something I have already read. If eternal salvation rested on comprehending poor old St Tom then we would all fry.

To article 3 I would point out that it is not even clear that they sinned at all, since they did not have the prequisite knowledge to know that their actions were sinful.

 

[blobru]

Maybe the Garden of Eden story only illustrates the paradox of "heaven on earth": why it's impossible, why life sucks sometimes, etc.

A&E innocent, no knowledge of G&E, no shame, were bound to disobey eventually (assuming no knowledge of G&E includes no knowledge of consequences, i.e., no sense of the seriousness of God's commandments).

But once A&E acquire that knowledge, know what sin is, God has to provide meaningful consequences for sin, and reserve the right to punish mortal sin with death. He then has no choice but to boot A&E out of Eden before they eat of the immortalizing Tree of Life (which is what -- plums? coconuts? And why doesn't God forbid them to eat from this tree until they've eaten from the Tree of Knowledge? Doesn't seem to make logical sense, so there's probably another moral buried there).

Anyway, fun discussion; very challenging to try to explain a story that looks to have been cobbled together from previous legends, regardless of consistency.

 

[TheAnachronism]

But Satan told Eve differently. How was Eve supposed to know that Satan was lying?

"Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

What, exactly, did the serpent lie about?

 

[OSS 117]

"Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

What, exactly, did the serpent lie about?

Ye shall not surely die
Directly opposed to the warning. "thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death."

But I prefer myself seduced, deceived or persuaded to describe the serpents action.

 

[Big Les]

You might as well try to reconcile the continuity of a popular sci-fi or fantasy franchise - the more material that's added and "re-imagined", the harder it is to make sense or relevance of.

 

[TheAnachronism]

Ye shall not surely die
Directly opposed to the warning. "thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death."

But I prefer myself seduced, deceived or persuaded to describe the serpents action.

But Adam and Eve were never immortal, were they? I thought that was the reason God didn't want them to eat of the Tree of Life.

As such, God's warning seems more like a threat of immediate danger (ie if you eat it, I'll kill you), which he didn't.

(Forgive me if I seem as if I am trying to argue something -- I am not, but these are just questions that I've never got around to asking, and I may as well ask now that the topic is at hand.)

 

[Oubliette]

Why hasn't the title of the thread been corrected?

 

[Oubliette]

But Adam and Eve were never immortal, were they? I thought that was the reason God didn't want them to eat of the Tree of Life.

That's what I think too.