[Ed.] Original Sin?

[Nosaj]

blobru,

I think that you have some interesting and thought-provoking ideas. Even so, who knows the real reason why I cast Adam and Eve out of Eden. I do, of course, but that is my little secret.

As for the identity of the fruit on the Tree of Knowledge, I hear that it was actually a fig; although, there is no conclusive evidence to confirm or deny this possibility as far as I am aware.



Elohim

 

[OSS 117]

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.)

Hi,

Christian theology suggest that they where immortal and this is introduced in the narrative by the Tree of Life.

Genesis 2:9. And the Lord God brought forth of the ground all manner of trees, fair to behold, and pleasant to eat of: the tree of life also in the midst of paradise: and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

It's from the tree of knowledge that God didn't want them to eat from.

 

[JanisChambers]

blobru,

I think that you have some interesting and thought-provoking ideas. Even so, who knows the real reason why I cast Adam and Eve out of Eden. I do, of course, but that is my little secret.

As for the identity of the fruit on the Tree of Knowledge, I hear that it was actually a fig; although, there is no conclusive evidence to confirm or deny this possibility as far as I am aware.



Elohim

I've always thought of it as a kind of dual-chambered pomagranite (sp). We could call it the Yin-Yangarine

 

[Nosaj]

 

[Oubliette]

Hi,

Christian theology suggest that they where immortal and this is introduced in the narrative by the Tree of Life.

Genesis 2:9. And the Lord God brought forth of the ground all manner of trees, fair to behold, and pleasant to eat of: the tree of life also in the midst of paradise: and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

It's from the tree of knowledge that God didn't want them to eat from.

Also, it's not that Adam and Eve were now "able to commit evil", that's not the real threat to God, this is:

"And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever'. So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life."
-Genesis 3:22-24

God knew they were like him now, knowing good and evil, the last thing he wanted was for them to live forever as well, like him, so he kicked them out.

 

[OSS 117]

Funny,

But it does bring a necessary nuance that they are not intrinsically immortal but rather that they aspire to immortality and it was provided to them by the tree of life.

They where not immortal per say.

 

[Oubliette]

I have some questions:

What was constituted as "evil" in Eden?

What was this knowledge of "good and evil" that Adam and Eve couldn't know of?

 

[OSS 117]

I have some questions:

What was constituted as "evil" in Eden?

What was this knowledge of "good and evil" that Adam and Eve couldn't know of?

After much theorizing and with the help of others objections I've been able to refine my positions, so if I may, I will summarize where the discussion as led me so far.

What was constituted as "evil" in Eden?

• There was only one rule, and that was not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Failure to heed this warning or breaking that law was evil. Even though A&E knew no evil, they had the capacity to understand that ill would come of it if they disobeyed.

• It's also possible to say that free will allowed to do evil deeds, even though they had no way of knowing what evil was.

• It's also possible through Christian theology to speculate that not suffering from our fallen nature, their choosing evil deeds would have been for them a choice done freely, rather then the result of their weakness.

• It can also be said bluntly that the serpent constituted evil in Eden.

What was this knowledge of "good and evil" that Adam and Eve couldn't know of?

Easier to say what is was not...

• It was not the capacity for moral discernment since this capacity is only the result of reason, which men already has. I have conceded that this capacity was somewhat a moot point since good and evil are not yet known. - however, to avoid confusion, it's good to outline that moral discernment itself was not what couldn't be had.

I have theorized that it could be a statement of independence from God - or a claim to be equal to God - in choosing for oneself what his Good and Evil. I was told that this point of view is not in line with Christian theology and I am still confused as to why exactly.

Thats pretty much it so far for me...

 

[TheAnachronism]

Well then, now I am rather confused indeed about the supposed "vileness" of the snake in Christian theology.

So God said that if they were to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, they would die. The Snake (Satan?) said that was not the case -- rather, they would gain knowledge from said tree.

Is it upheld in Christian doctrine that the snake was omniscient, and thus knew that God's punishment was that they would no longer be able to eat from the Tree of Life?

Think of it this way: a parent tells their son in no uncertain terms that if they eat the cookie sitting on the kitchen table, they will die. Another child tells the son "you won't die if you eat that cookie -- don't be silly!"

The son eats the cookie, and when the parent discovers this, the son is shot and killed.

Surely we wouldn't assume that the child had lied to the son, would we? Not unless, of course, the child knew that the parent was going to shoot and kill the son.

It would be different, perhaps, if God had told Adam and Eve "if you eat from the Tree of Knowledge, I will no longer allow you to eat from the tree of life."

Of course, that's not what was said.

 

[blobru]

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

Maybe it's supposed to exist in original sin.

I must say this is a fun thread. OSS you rock at apology!

What's great about the Bible, whether you believe or not, you can imagine you do and then try to undo your belief with logic. Best puzzle ever -- nice work, God! (God bows to applause, picks up flower, sniffs daintily, blushes, shuffles off thread...)

Janis, "yin-yangerine" it is (so tart, yet so sweet!)

Elohim, another question: what do you mean when you say:

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Is there more than one of you? Do you imagine there's more than one of you? Do you often stroll through the garden talking to yourself in the first person plural? Has your prescription run out?

To anyone, I'm still puzzled by A&E's reaction to eating the forbidden fruit. Why is their first reaction shame at their nakedness, and not guilt at their disobedience?
And, why ban the Tree of Life's fruit (yin-yangerines) as an afterthought; why doesn't God declare it off limits right from the git-go?

ETA -- just read TheAnachronism's response: they were eating the ToL fruit already and immortal (that's some healthy fruit! vitamin Ω); removing it from their diet makes them mortal! (hadn't thought of that, tho' the wording of Genesis 3:22 suggests one bite and you're good [same as ToK]... I'm not sure.)

 

[Oubliette]

Is there more than one of you? Do you imagine there's more than one of you? Do you often stroll through the garden talking to yourself in the first person plural? Has your prescription run out?

Don't be silly, there can only be one God! Although he talks in plural... maybe he has a "multiple personalities" disorder... that would explain the whole concept of trinity...

 

[OSS 117]

Is it upheld in Christian doctrine that the snake was omniscient, and thus knew that God's punishment was that they would no longer be able to eat from the Tree of Life?

Think of it this way: a parent tells their son in no uncertain terms that if they eat the cookie sitting on the kitchen table, they will die. Another child tells the son "you won't die if you eat that cookie -- don't be silly!"

The son eats the cookie, and when the parent discovers this, the son is shot and killed.

Surely we wouldn't assume that the child had lied to the son, would we? Not unless, of course, the child knew that the parent was going to shoot and kill the son.

I was going over the very same analogy in my mind yesterday or the day before. Interesting.

As suggested earlier in the thread, I am not attached to the idea of the serpent lying. I prefer the simpler idea that he tempted with malicious intentions. This way, the whole omniscient question is bypassed and left to braver then me to decipher.

I also like the interpretation that the Devil was reduced to assume the form of an animal to outwardly tempt Eve, rather then it would be with us in our fallen state, inwardly, through our imagination and mental forum of ideas.

 

[JohnChasWebb]

Original Sin Analysis...

I imagine not many Christian Apologists venture around this site very often, but I would love to hear any answers available. I am very confused about the logic of "Origional Sin". From what I can tell Adam and Eve were completely innocent before they suddenly assimilated the knowledge of Good and Evil. By not listening to God they committed the first sin and for that they and all future generations were cursed.

First question:

If Adam and Eve were completely innocent when committing the sin of disobedience, how could God punish them as if they should have known better? What did God really expect of two beings that could not yet conceive of evil actions?

Reply #1
If a mother warns a child to not run into the street and the child disobeys and is hit by a vehicle then being hit by the vehicle is not 'punishment'... it is the result of disobedience.
Adan and Eve were warned about not eating the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. What eating the fruit symbolizes is adding the knowledge of evil to the previously 'all good' cosmology of Eden (God created everything and saw that it was 'good'.) As a result of obtaining the knowledge of evil (also) death was introduced into the cosmology. Death has no part inside of Eden so, as a result, Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden by their act of disobedience which introduced evil into the otherwise 'all good' cosmology of Eden. In other words, they cast themselves out of Eden.


Second question:

Even given that Adam and Eve had actually committed a sin they could be found guilty of, what Justifies God's further decision of continuing the curse though every generation until the end of time?

Reply #2
The 'sin of Adam' must be corrected or it perpetuates into infinity. All 'evil' and observations (judgments) of evil must be erased from the mind and activities of the individual. We must return to the 'all good' cosmology of Eden first within our own mind and heart.

Third question:

Regarding being "reborn". After several thousand years of people living and dying (including a genocidal flood) God then decides to forgive the ancestors of Adam and Eve by the Sacrifice of the Third aspect of God "The Son". This allows people to embrace the forgiveness of God, however it does not reverse the curses that were placed on Adam and Eve such as Man having to 'till the soil' or women having to suffer childbirth or menstruation. Further, why do these curses not cease after one is "reborn"?

Reply #3
But it does erase the sin but ONLY from the individual who fully embraces the teachings (love, kindness, etc.) and renews (rebirth) his or her mind and heart.


Fourth question:

The sin seems (to me) to be a sin of disobedience, the Sin of not listening to God. The result was that Adam and Eve knew of Good and Evil. The essence of my question is why is this such a bad thing? 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?

Reply #4
See #1 ... The act of disobedience opened a Pandora's Box by the introduction or knowledge of evil.
Unlike the Christian cosmology the Hebrew cosmology sees God as having two faces... one good and the other evil. The face that God shows to you is a response to the face that we show to God.
It would be as if we are sitting on a beautiful beach watching the ocean and blue sky and then start thinking about something terrible. As a result we virtually 'throw ourselves out' of the earlier positive and uplifting mindset and contaminate our consciousness.

Final question:

In the age of Moses God makes ten commandments that man is to follow. I find it odd that God did not make the ten commandments in the age of Adam and Eve. The law "thou shall not kill" could have helped when Cain slew Abel, but there was no such tablet in those days. So why did it take God so long?

I have to close with not so much a question as just a comment. God left Adam and Eve, two innocents even unaware they were nude, alone with bad influences (the snake) and a powerful temptation. In essence, it was children being children, but he punished them for something they could not understand that he could have very easily prevented. In the end, this just makes God out to be a very irresponsible parent.

Reply #5 .... There are certain activities that are, in themselves, inherently wrong and killing is one of them. No notice is required regarding activities that are inherently evil.
Anyhow, the tale of Cain and Abel is a metaphor for evil usurping the good that is within Man. A condition that MUST be reversed.
The 'snake' is a symbol of the mind. The mind can be configured into any shape (like a snake)... Adam and Eve were beguiled by their own minds and their act of disobedience resulted in the introduction of chaos... just like a child who runs out into traffic despite being told by his mother to stay out of the street.

..

 

[TheAnachronism]

ETA -- just read TheAnachronism's response: they were eating the ToL fruit already and immortal (that's some healthy fruit! vitamin Ω); removing it from their diet makes them mortal! (hadn't thought of that, tho' the wording of Genesis 3:22 suggests one bite and you're good [same as ToK]... I'm not sure.)

This was originally OSS's assertion. I'm not sure if this is accepted by mainstream Christianity or not. I'll have to read back over Genesis to see if it makes sense to me.

 

[OSS 117]

I'm still puzzled by A&E's reaction to eating the forbidden fruit. Why is their first reaction shame at their nakedness, and not guilt at their disobedience?

It might simply be a question of narrative.

They experience both together tasting the fruit and are suddenly confronted with new realities about themselves that bring shame towards one another. (Genesis 3:7) It's in the very next verse that they need to confront God, bringing about new dimensions of consequences. (Genesis 3:8)

I don't see any special significance in the order and I don't believe it's meant to imply a particular gradation in guilt. If anything, this sequence of event unify Adam and Eve in disobedience, a necessary element in the story.

 

[Robin]

It's also possible to say that free will allowed to do evil deeds, even though they had no way of knowing what evil was

This still doesn't seem to make sense.

Let's say we find a person who has no knowledge of numbering systems and we give him the following list:

5,19,2,8,3,16,24,9,82,4,7,23

and said point to one of these. Now remember, to him these are just a bunch of meaningless symbols. He points to the second number on the list. Now it would be true to say "he chose a prime number". But it would not be true to say "he intentionally chose a prime number".

Intention would seem to be a key component of free will. So you could say "they chose evil" if it were in fact true that pride, disobedience or incaution were evil (and that is not in itself completely clear).

But you could not say they intentionally chose evil. You could not say they chose evil of their own free will.

 

[OSS 117]

This still doesn't seem to make sense.

Let's say we find a person who has no knowledge of numbering systems and we give him the following list:

5,19,2,8,3,16,24,9,82,4,7,23

and said point to one of these. Now remember, to him these are just a bunch of meaningless symbols. He points to the second number on the list. Now it would be true to say "he chose a prime number". But it would not be true to say "he intentionally chose a prime number".

Intention would seem to be a key component of free will. So you could say "they chose evil" if it were in fact true that pride, disobedience or incaution were evil (and that is not in itself completely clear).

But you could not say they intentionally chose evil. You could not say they chose evil of their own free will.

I can't disagree with you, but where you see this as a problem, I do not.

... and said point to one of these. Now remember, to him these are just a bunch of meaningless symbols. He points to the second number on the list. Now it would be true to say "he chose a prime number". But it would not be true to say "he intentionally chose a prime number".

I agree he would not choose a prime number intentionally. But this only highlights a lack of knowledge, not of free will. Asking him to pick a random number was within his realm of knowledge and he did so in his own free will. If his action is perfectly free and unrestrained, choosing an odd number was possible for him to do freely.

Intention would seem to be a key component of free will.

Sure, I can't disagree with that either. But intentions are only conceivable within our knowledge. Your example demonstrate that some free willed actions may belong to categories the person performing the actions do not understand.

In other words, and what you may have missed, and that I did not mention, in my mind, - and this is the result of my speculation thus of my personal belief - it's possible that A&E may have sinned to various degree prior to this whole narrative and it would have been without their knowledge and have gone unnoticed. The problem with this particular incident in the story and why it became so grave is that the sin was transgressing the one clear rule laid down by God.

Finally, if I lay the foundation here now and today that actions can either be asdlifjsd or skdufhask. You obviously would have no clue what I'm talking about. Would that somehow restrict your freedom of action and thought ? Are you sure some of the actions or thought you will are not either asdlifjsd or skdufhask ?

 

[Nosaj]

blobru,

Is there more than one of you?

We have three brothers and two sisters.



Jason

 

[Nosaj]

JohnChasWebb,

If a mother warns a child to not run into the street and the child disobeys and is hit by a vehicle then being hit by the vehicle is not 'punishment'... it is the result of disobedience.
Adan and Eve were warned about not eating the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. What eating the fruit symbolizes is adding the knowledge of evil to the previously 'all good' cosmology of Eden (God created everything and saw that it was 'good'.) As a result of obtaining the knowledge of evil (also) death was introduced into the cosmology. Death has no part inside of Eden so, as a result, Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden by their act of disobedience which introduced evil into the otherwise 'all good' cosmology of Eden. In other words, they cast themselves out of Eden.

At first, this made a lot of sense, but then I recalled the quote, "And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever'. So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life" (Genesis 3:22-24). To me, this passage seems to imply that the knowledge of good and evil was already a part of the cosmology of Eden as it was a part of G_d. If Adam and Eve became like G_d and Co. by gaining this knowledge, wouldn't logic suggest that this knowledge was not introduced by Adam and Eve?

Jason

 

[Nosaj]

JohnChasWebb,

]The 'sin of Adam' must be corrected or it perpetuates into infinity. All 'evil' and observations (judgments) of evil must be erased from the mind and activities of the individual. We must return to the 'all good' cosmology of Eden first within our own mind and heart.

Am I to understand that Original Sin=guilt-by-proxy?

But it does erase the sin but ONLY from the individual who fully embraces the teachings (love, kindness, etc.) and renews (rebirth) his or her mind and heart.

Does this mean that G_d's forgiveness is conditional?

Jason