[Ed.] Original Sin?

OSS 117 said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

We conceive freedom in two senses. There is freedom from constraint and freedom to perform an action. Freedom to makes no sense without the enabling conditions. Freedom to sin requires an understanding of sin. Otherwise, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, it is just an action. Whether or not someone else views that action as sin doesn't matter. It could not be sin for Adam and Eve because they had no conception of sin (they lacked the enabling conditions).
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
We conceive freedom in two senses. There is freedom from constraint and freedom to perform an action. Freedom to makes no sense without the enabling conditions. Freedom to sin requires an understanding of sin. Otherwise, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, it is just an action. Whether or not someone else views that action as sin doesn't matter. It could not be sin for Adam and Eve because they had no conception of sin (they lacked the enabling conditions).
Click to expand...


I agree Ichneumonwasp and we are discussing of subtle nuances.

This notion of choice, and the freedom to choose to sin muddies the water of this thread IMO. I forget how it was introduced, it may have been my fault. I am not backing away from it, but it needs to be put in it's proper context.

Essentially, this notion is presented only in opposition to our fallen nature, where currently, because of our inherent weakness it is impossible not to sin.

That being said, the notion of choice can be re-phrased to mean that there is no inerrant weakness in A&E against which they need to fight against to avoid sinning. Framed in this way, and with my previous post in mind, I don't see any difficulties in that sin could have occurred without the knowledge of it being so.

It's also important to emphasize that the fault was of eating of from the Tree of Knowledge, not sinning.
 
Last edited:
OSS 117 said:
It's also important to emphasize that the fault was of eating of from the Tree of Knowledge, not sinning.
Click to expand...

What if we wre to rephrase the original post?

Not original sin, but the origin of sin?

Here's one way of looking at it:

Adam and Eve could not commit sin because they lacked the necessary condition -- knowledge of good and evil -- to commit sin. What they did was trangress God's law "don't eat of the fruit". They clearly had a choice -- eat/don't eat -- and that choice was free of constraint. It was not completely free though since they could not fully understand what they were doing
 
Last edited:
Ichneumonwasp said:
Here's one way of looking at it:

Adam and Eve could not commit sin because they lacked the necessary condition -- knowledge of good and evil -- to commit sin. What they did was trangress God's law "don't eat of the fruit". They clearly had a choice -- eat/don't eat -- and that choice was free of constraint. It was not completely free though since they could not fully understand what they were doing
Click to expand...


Fair enough,

The key is: "could not fully understand what they were doing."
Let me assume that your point of contention is that the punishment to A&E and humanity is to harsh.

Well then, we are likely in a stalemate.

A men of Faith would argue that God takes into consideration A&E's capacity and fully understands the movement of their souls and that the punishment is just and good. The non-believer will weigh in with is own justice and come up with is own assessment.

Both scales of justice are perfectly subjective and cannot be debated rationally. Or at the very least, I wouldn't know where to start.

This might very well be the end of our adventure.

If this is the case, the conclusion would then be that Faith permits one to see A&E's story as being coherent, and that there is no logical gridlock that makes it invalid. The point of contention between believers and non-believers is that of God's Justice and that cannot be debated.
 
Last edited:
OSS 117 said:
Let me assume that your point of contention is that the punishment to A&E and humanity is to harsh.
Click to expand...

My only point of contention was that I don't think we can call what Adam and Eve did a sin. Transgression, yes. Sin, I don't think so.

I don't feel that I'm in a position to decide if such punishment (if such it was) was or wasn't too harsh.

Personally, I just think this is a story. I don't think that it is logically inconsistent, though.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
My only point of contention was that I don't think we can call what Adam and Eve did a sin. Transgression, yes. Sin, I don't think so.
Click to expand...

If that is your only point of contention, we have very little to differentiate us. I also believe it was not a sin in the same way we understand it today anyway.

Anyhow, fun stuff, I'm starting a silly 9/11 debate elsewhere so will take my leave from this thread.

:)
 
JohnChasWebb said:
...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...
Click to expand...
OSS 117 said:
...
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)
...
Click to expand...

Looking over these two responses gives me another idea:
"Sin" is defined as disobeying God; "death" is punishment for sin.

What if there was nothing 'special' about the Tree of Knowledge (the fruit had no magic sense of G&E in it)? God just picked out an apple tree at random and told A&E not to eat from it, or else they'd die. A&E had never sinned before, meaning they had no knowledge of G&E, no experience of sin. It is the act of disobedience, not the forbidden fruit, that gives them the experience, the "knowledge" of G&E. Original Sin is just this first act of disobedience.

Once they've sinned, they realize they are free to disobey God. They are self-aware, can choose for themselves. Because they can choose for themselves, they must be self-critical. This may be the point of their shame at their nakedness: they now know that nakedness is a "choice" -- everything is more or less a 'moral' choice -- and their shame is the awakening of moral anxiety.

Of course God can't trust A&E anymore. He said they'd die, and still they sinned! Whatever their excuse was -- smooth-talkin' snake, Eve really hungry, Adam doesn't want to tick off the wife -- they disobeyed Him! Were A&E to now eat from the Tree of Life, He'd have two disobedient, immortal beings on His hands. Major stress for God. So knowing sin means they will know death too. Goodbye Garden, hello cruel cruel world. :pythonfoot:

Still wonder what would have happened if they had eaten from the ToL, which wasn't off limits, before the ToK. Maybe instant promotion to "angel"; thus all the angels are just ex-A&E's who didn't 'fall' for snake's come-on before stumbling into the yin-yangerine grove. :halo: :tinfoil :melting
Phew, apology is tough!!!
 
Last edited:
blobru said:
....
Still wonder what would have happened if they had eaten from the ToL, which wasn't off limits, before the ToK. Maybe instant promotion to "angel"; thus all the angels are just ex-A&E's who didn't 'fall' for snake's come-on before stumbling into the yin-yangerine grove. :halo: :tinfoil :melting
Phew, apology is tough!!!
Click to expand...
I wonder what would have happened if the glass slipper would have fit one of Cinderella's stepsisters.
 
OSS 117 said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
It would restrict my freedom to choose to avoid skdufhask actions.

Suppose you go to vote in the next elections and all the names and parties are blanked out for security reasons. But you can still mark any box.

You now still have complete freedom to vote as you wish - right?

Or is control of information sometimes a way of controlling freedom of choice?
 
I keep being ignored so here is another attempt. Free will and original sin are just nonsense made up by Christians over the years to explain an illogical text which they see meaning in. It's akin to reading Nostradamus and seeing connections in the text after the fact.
 
hey skeptigirl...
Does it make sense for a god to create a text (the Bible) which is so confusing, vague, and full of outright contradictions that no one seems to even know what it is supposed to say?...

I guess you make bad decisions when you create the world in six business days..had that selfish fool, worked instead of relaxed on the 7th day-we would have a more efficient text to go by..

...John
- "i don't believe you"-Bob Dylan
 
skeptigirl said:
I keep being ignored so here is another attempt. Free will and original sin are just nonsense made up by Christians over the years to explain an illogical text which they see meaning in. It's akin to reading Nostradamus and seeing connections in the text after the fact.
Click to expand...
I am not sure about that. Free will probably started out as a refutation of predestination, whereas "sin" is just a way of enforcing moral codes (and possibly other codes, such as health codes) when there is no enforcement authority.

And thank you to the mod who fixed the title of the thread. It was driving me crazy.

****
ETA joke:
If something is a "sin" in one part of the world, but not all parts, does that mean that it is "a regional sin"?
 
Sorry for what I missed, but a quick scan suggests that most answers start on the debating principle of taking a stand on the fundamental, that there was a god that did such and such (not that many believe that).

I suppose that works if debating a true believer, but otherwise the simpler answer is that this is a human invention that seems to work well in keeping the flock under control. No doubt there have been other competing concepts, memes if you will, but this one is remarkably effective in keeping people from feeling good about themselves, and therefore in need of help, from guess who? Pass the tray.
 
I agree, Tricky, that there is a separate argument of free will vs pre-destiny. That doesn't preclude such a debate being superimposed on the Bible to explain the illogical, "confusing, vague, and full of outright contradictions" (as John reminds us) text.
 
Robin said:
It would restrict my freedom to choose to avoid skdufhask actions.

Suppose you go to vote in the next elections and all the names and parties are blanked out for security reasons. But you can still mark any box.

You now still have complete freedom to vote as you wish - right?

Or is control of information sometimes a way of controlling freedom of choice?
Click to expand...

Hi,

Yes it would off course be the case if you where to choose between skdufhask or it's contrary.

I've been assuming all along that this choice was never a dilemma prior. But I see your point that when she is tempted by the snake, she is confronted with that choice.

So the point is granted.
 
I have to add that Naturalism seems to answer the question much better than the idea of OS. Free will *is* an illusion. Our choices are the result of our past and present, however if we examine the mechanism of those choices we can then expand that illusion that is our self awareness. This seems to be common features of faith vs. science. Faith lets you pretend you have all the answers, but you never get anywhere. Science helps you realize what little you actually have, and what can be done with it.
 
Tricky said:
****
ETA joke:
If something is a "sin" in one part of the world, but not all parts, does that mean that it is "a regional sin"?
Click to expand...
Since joking is now in order, the thread's title and author immediately had me thinking that a more entertaining use of my time was in considering the original sins of Marylin Chambers.

As it turns out, I was mistaken. The discussion was most fruitful, between OSS and Janice, and I-wasp, whereas at this point in time, Marylin Chambers' various antics boil down to little more than standard choke and poke, with a trapeze.

DR
 
skeptigirl said:
I wonder what would have happened if the glass slipper would have fit one of Cinderella's stepsisters.
Click to expand...

In the original story, it did!

Of course, they had to cut off a few toes to get there, but leave it to Disney to cut out all of the satisfying gore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom