A Thought On Original Sin

  • 46 Replies
  • 6583 Views
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
A Thought On Original Sin
« on: June 15, 2010, 01:27:49 PM »
Original sin. The Christian term for what Adam and Eve committed in the Garden of Eden. If you're unfamiliar with it, God put a tree in the middle of Eden and said that if they ate from the tree, they would die. In truth, it simply meant if they ate from the tree then they would become mortal, and die of old age (at least that's what I've heard). Alternatively, it could mean their souls died, but I digress.
You can guess what happened. Eve ate from the tree, and made Adam eat, after being asked to by a devil-figure in the guise of a snake. Because of this, they and the rest of humanity were flung out of Eden. They 'died' as the Bible said. And because of this, their descendants, their children were all punished for this iniquity.
The children were put to death, if you will.

Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2010, 02:00:23 PM »
An additional comment, if man did not know the difference between good and evil before eating the fruit of knowledge, how could they have known that eating of the fruit was wrong?  God did not give us the ability to reason right and wrong, why punish us when we end up doing something wrong?

?

Muphci

  • 4458
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2010, 03:34:23 PM »
In the Bible, it states that Adam and Eve's sons, Cain and Abel, "found wives." How the hell?
There is no such thing as no time for fisting.

*

Lorddave

  • 18146
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2010, 09:12:05 AM »
An additional comment, if man did not know the difference between good and evil before eating the fruit of knowledge, how could they have known that eating of the fruit was wrong?  God did not give us the ability to reason right and wrong, why punish us when we end up doing something wrong?
The idea of right and wrong is very simple:
Right is what God says to do.
Wrong is going against what God says to do.

Which brings about the question: How can you get knowledge of good and evil if Good is defined as what is right and what is right is defined as doing whatever God says? 

In the Bible, it states that Adam and Eve's sons, Cain and Abel, "found wives." How the hell?

They don't talk about the daughters of Adam and Eve.
Incest FTW!

Then, later, God wipes out the world except for about 12 people, all related by blood or marriage.  We now have close to 10 billion people of varying skin color, facial features, and genetic profiles.  AND  the minimum population to retain genetic diversity and ensure a stable population is about 120 people. 

Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

?

Muphci

  • 4458
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2010, 09:25:24 AM »
Then, later, God wipes out the world except for about 12 people, all related by blood or marriage.  We now have close to 10 billion people of varying skin color, facial features, and genetic profiles.  AND  the minimum population to retain genetic diversity and ensure a stable population is about 120 people. 

Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?

Also, on the topic of Noah's ark, it states that there are two of every animal, male and female. In order to maintain genetic diversity for them, we'd need like...I think it's fifty of each animal, plus extras for the carnivores to eat. Why don't we have a bunch of tardass, inbred species limping around?
There is no such thing as no time for fisting.

*

Lorddave

  • 18146
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2010, 09:27:35 AM »
Then, later, God wipes out the world except for about 12 people, all related by blood or marriage.  We now have close to 10 billion people of varying skin color, facial features, and genetic profiles.  AND  the minimum population to retain genetic diversity and ensure a stable population is about 120 people. 

Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?

Also, on the topic of Noah's ark, it states that there are two of every animal, male and female. In order to maintain genetic diversity for them, we'd need like...I think it's fifty of each animal, plus extras for the carnivores to eat. Why don't we have a bunch of tardass, inbred species limping around?

Exactly.  It's like the whole story was written as someone's fantasy.  Someone who had only ever heard of the middle East, never knew the world had other continents, didn't know anything about genetics, and thought all animals could eat Grass.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2010, 09:35:15 AM »
The idea of right and wrong is very simple:
Right is what God says to do.
Wrong is going against what God says to do.

Which brings about the question: How can you get knowledge of good and evil if Good is defined as what is right and what is right is defined as doing whatever God says?


Actually, a more interesting question is what is traditionally known as the Euthyphro dilemma (from Plato's dialogue of the same name), in which Socrates asks Euthyphro "is the holy approved by the gods because it's holy, or is it holy because it's approved?"


If you substitute 'good' for 'holy', the dilemma still stands, and there is a wealth of material written on the subject.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Lorddave

  • 18146
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2010, 09:42:39 AM »
The idea of right and wrong is very simple:
Right is what God says to do.
Wrong is going against what God says to do.

Which brings about the question: How can you get knowledge of good and evil if Good is defined as what is right and what is right is defined as doing whatever God says?


Actually, a more interesting question is what is traditionally known as the Euthyphro dilemma (from Plato's dialogue of the same name), in which Socrates asks Euthyphro "is the holy approved by the gods because it's holy, or is it holy because it's approved?"


If you substitute 'good' for 'holy', the dilemma still stands, and there is a wealth of material written on the subject.

Well since we define Holy as the Gods, then anything they do is Holy.  So this isn't a "which came first" situation since to be Holy only requires you to be a God and to be a God, you need people to think you are.

So, God/s = Holy.
Holy = Good.
Bad = NOT Good.

And there we have it.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2010, 10:01:28 AM »
You're simply supporting the second part of the argument, without considering its implications. For example, what makes God Holy if holiness is defined in terms of his will? Can we really say God is good if what is good depends entirely upon his wishes?


And why does God have the authority to command us if he is not inherently good himself? To follow the commands of a 'good God' makes sense, but if good is simply whatever the current whim of God happens to be, then we need some other reason for being obigated to follow him in the first place.


These are just a couple of issues that result from the second half of the dilemma.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Lorddave

  • 18146
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2010, 10:22:46 AM »
You're simply supporting the second part of the argument, without considering its implications. For example, what makes God Holy if holiness is defined in terms of his will? Can we really say God is good if what is good depends entirely upon his wishes?


And why does God have the authority to command us if he is not inherently good himself? To follow the commands of a 'good God' makes sense, but if good is simply whatever the current whim of God happens to be, then we need some other reason for being obigated to follow him in the first place.


These are just a couple of issues that result from the second half of the dilemma.

I thought I made my self clear, I apologize if I did not.
God is holy because we, humans, say so.  That's it.  He has authority because we say he does. 
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2010, 10:33:23 AM »
So what is good/holy is defined by us, not by God? And why can we define what is or isn't good? Exactly what is the justification or basis of our capacity to decide what is or isn't good/holy?


And which humans do you mean? Because not all humans say God is holy. I certainly don't. What happens when different people give different Gods 'authority', and those Gods supposedly command different things?
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Lorddave

  • 18146
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2010, 10:43:44 AM »
So what is good/holy is defined by us, not by God? And why can we define what is or isn't good? Exactly what is the justification or basis of our capacity to decide what is or isn't good/holy?
We can only define it for ourselves.  Normally we base it on the "Golden Rule" Do unto others what you would have done to yourself.  Killing, stealing, having sex with someone else's wife... all are things most people really don't want to have done to them.  But in the end, Good and Evil are defined by what the majority in a society defines them as.  

Quote
And which humans do you mean? Because not all humans say God is holy. I certainly don't. What happens when different people give different Gods 'authority', and those Gods supposedly command different things?

All of them.  Some give him authority, some don't.  Some say he's holy, some don't.  The end result is the creation of factions.  If a faction or group believe something strong enough and are large enough, they can split off and make their own culture or fight the current culture and change it.  You see this every generation in America.  What was Taboo and "bad" in the 1950s isn't bad anymore.  What was good in the 1950s isn't good anymore.


In the end, it all boils down to my personal philosophy on life:
There is no meaning to life except the one you give yourself.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2010, 03:08:40 PM by Lorddave »
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #12 on: June 17, 2010, 10:13:40 AM »
In the Bible, it states that Adam and Eve's sons, Cain and Abel, "found wives." How the hell?

Their sisters. This has been answered a few time now.

An additional comment, if man did not know the difference between good and evil before eating the fruit of knowledge, how could they have known that eating of the fruit was wrong?  God did not give us the ability to reason right and wrong, why punish us when we end up doing something wrong?

God told them not to eat it, I don't think this has anything to do with good or evil. They were obviously aware that eating it would go against what their father had instructed them to do, so in that respect their knowledge of what was right and wrong was narrowed to a single decision. Just as children might not be able to wrap their head around the concept of sin, they are capable of making decisions to follow the directions of their parents.


Then, later, God wipes out the world except for about 12 people, all related by blood or marriage.  We now have close to 10 billion people of varying skin color, facial features, and genetic profiles.  AND  the minimum population to retain genetic diversity and ensure a stable population is about 120 people. 

Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?

Yeah! It is almost as if God had something to do with it.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #13 on: June 17, 2010, 10:20:02 AM »
So, was it right to punish the whole of humanity for the sin committed by just two people? Considering God says not to blame the child for the sin of the parent.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 49792
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #14 on: June 17, 2010, 10:25:26 AM »
God told them not to eat the fruit, but then the serpent came along and told them it would be OK. They didn't have the ability to detect evil in the snake, because they were innocent.  I don't understand why God punished Adam and Eve, when he should have punished the serpent for tricking them.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #15 on: June 17, 2010, 10:46:00 AM »
If you have no sense of right or wrong, you can't know that the serpent is lying because as far as you're aware everything is the truth.

Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #16 on: June 17, 2010, 12:40:40 PM »
God told them not to eat the fruit, but then the serpent came along and told them it would be OK. They didn't have the ability to detect evil in the snake, because they were innocent.  I don't understand why God punished Adam and Eve, when he should have punished the serpent for tricking them.

Will, God did punish the serpent but regardless, are you assuming that they weren't able to tell the difference between God and the snake and make an informed decision about who they should follow?

If you have no sense of right or wrong, you can't know that the serpent is lying because as far as you're aware everything is the truth.

They obviously did have a sense of right and wrong insofar as it related to the fruit on the tree. God and the serpent both gave them completely contradictory instructions regarding the fruit. They made a deliberate decision not to obey their creator.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2010, 12:44:47 PM by Canadark »
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #17 on: June 17, 2010, 12:48:55 PM »
No, the fruit gave them the knowledge of good and evil. Until then they could not make an informed decision. How could they know what a lie or a deception is? As far as they are concerned the word of the serpent is equally valid to the word of God as they have no standards by which to assess knowledge.

Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #18 on: June 17, 2010, 12:56:44 PM »
No, the fruit gave them the knowledge of good and evil. Until then they could not make an informed decision. How could they know what a lie or a deception is? As far as they are concerned the word of the serpent is equally valid to the word of God as they have no standards by which to assess knowledge.

They understood completely that God told them not to eat the fruit, and that the serpent to whom they owed no allegiance told them to do the exact opposite. We can see this in Genesis 3:2-3.

Are you arguing that because they did not fully comprehend the consequences of their actions insofar as understanding at a philosophical level what is good and what is evil, that they are absolved of any wrongdoing?
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #19 on: June 17, 2010, 01:02:50 PM »
No, the fruit gave them the knowledge of good and evil. Until then they could not make an informed decision. How could they know what a lie or a deception is? As far as they are concerned the word of the serpent is equally valid to the word of God as they have no standards by which to assess knowledge.

They understood completely that God told them not to eat the fruit, and that the serpent to whom they owed no allegiance told them to do the exact opposite. We can see this in Genesis 3:2-3.

Are you arguing that because they did not fully comprehend the consequences of their actions insofar as understanding at a philosophical level what is good and what is evil, that they are absolved of any wrongdoing?

How do we punish children?
Not as harshly as we punish adults. Why? Because they don't fully understand what they're doing.
And in essence, Adam and Eve were just that: children. They hadn't been alive very long, they hadn't experienced any evil, and why would they think they owed no allegiance to the snake? God had put everything in the garden, so they no doubt thought they were supposed to obey the snake.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #20 on: June 17, 2010, 01:04:28 PM »
No, the fruit gave them the knowledge of good and evil. Until then they could not make an informed decision. How could they know what a lie or a deception is? As far as they are concerned the word of the serpent is equally valid to the word of God as they have no standards by which to assess knowledge.

They understood completely that God told them not to eat the fruit, and that the serpent to whom they owed no allegiance told them to do the exact opposite. We can see this in Genesis 3:2-3.

Are you arguing that because they did not fully comprehend the consequences of their actions insofar as understanding at a philosophical level what is good and what is evil, that they are absolved of any wrongdoing?

I'm not disputing the snake told them to do the exact opposite, in fact it's central to my argument.

But they did not know that following allegiances was right and breaking them was wrong. If they could then in what respect can the fruit be said to have imparted any knowledge?

It's like a baby stealing a biscuit, we know it's wrong, the baby doesn't and we try to impart that knowledge to the baby by telling it off, we don't throw it out onto the streets!

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2010, 01:06:08 PM »
If God didn't want them to have knowledge of good and evil (right and wrong).  Then why did he put the tree there in the first place?

Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #22 on: June 17, 2010, 01:18:39 PM »
If God didn't want them to have knowledge of good and evil (right and wrong).  Then why did he put the tree there in the first place?

I don't accept the premise of your question.

No, the fruit gave them the knowledge of good and evil. Until then they could not make an informed decision. How could they know what a lie or a deception is? As far as they are concerned the word of the serpent is equally valid to the word of God as they have no standards by which to assess knowledge.

They understood completely that God told them not to eat the fruit, and that the serpent to whom they owed no allegiance told them to do the exact opposite. We can see this in Genesis 3:2-3.

Are you arguing that because they did not fully comprehend the consequences of their actions insofar as understanding at a philosophical level what is good and what is evil, that they are absolved of any wrongdoing?

I'm not disputing the snake told them to do the exact opposite, in fact it's central to my argument.

But they did not know that following allegiances was right and breaking them was wrong. If they could then in what respect can the fruit be said to have imparted any knowledge?

It's like a baby stealing a biscuit, we know it's wrong, the baby doesn't and we try to impart that knowledge to the baby by telling it off, we don't throw it out onto the streets!

The point I am trying to make is that I see no reason to believe that Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of the value of allegiance, but even if they didn't, we are starting to get into the whole issue of God's sovereignty all over again.

Even if Adam and Eve understood at the most basic level that what they were doing was wrong and still did it, the fact remains that God knew that this would take place, and as the author and creator of the universe, he willed that it would happen. Their disobedience plays an important part in the story of humanity which eventually culminated in the coming of Jesus Christ and the redemption of mankind. Not all Christians would agree with me, but I am of the belief that God not only knew, but planned that he would eventually send his son to die for our sins from the very beginning.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #23 on: June 17, 2010, 01:22:09 PM »
Quote
Even if Adam and Eve understood at the most basic level that what they were doing was wrong and still did it

But. They. Didn't!

That is the whole point of the tree of knowledge!

Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #24 on: June 17, 2010, 01:30:14 PM »
Quote
Even if Adam and Eve understood at the most basic level that what they were doing was wrong and still did it

But. They. Didn't!

That is the whole point of the tree of knowledge!

Give me the chapter and verse you are referring to because I can't find it.

The fact that God told them not to eat from the tree of knowledge is evidence enough that they at least were capable of understanding that they were not supposed to eat it, even if they did not understand sin beyond that single act. Otherwise why would God have told them anything?
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #25 on: June 17, 2010, 01:35:36 PM »
Quote
Even if Adam and Eve understood at the most basic level that what they were doing was wrong and still did it

But. They. Didn't!

That is the whole point of the tree of knowledge!

Give me the chapter and verse you are referring to because I can't find it.

The fact that God told them not to eat from the tree of knowledge is evidence enough that they at least were capable of understanding that they were not supposed to eat it, even if they did not understand sin beyond that single act. Otherwise why would God have told them anything?

That's a good question. Why did God bother telling them anything when He's all knowing and would already know what Eve would do.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #26 on: June 17, 2010, 01:42:28 PM »
Well Gen 2 9 is clear that this is the tree of good and evil. genesis 2 25 says they felt no shame.

to be fair it doesn't go into a great deal of detail about the levels of conscience and knowledge of good end evil that Adam and Eve have in the single chapter dealing with it but it is interesting that when the snake asks them whether they can eat from the tree Eve repeats God's instructions parrot-fashion.

In C3 V6 Eve has no qualms about eating the fruit after the snake has told her to, no moments of moral dilemma, no serious pondering, which is interesting since she just repeated the instruction seconds before, to me that tells me that when the snake said it was ok she believed instantly, this is not the action of someone who has any sense of right or wrong.

(before you ask, my Bible is the NIV youth Bible given to me when I was confirmed at about 15)

Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #27 on: June 17, 2010, 01:44:39 PM »
Quote
Even if Adam and Eve understood at the most basic level that what they were doing was wrong and still did it

But. They. Didn't!

That is the whole point of the tree of knowledge!

Give me the chapter and verse you are referring to because I can't find it.

The fact that God told them not to eat from the tree of knowledge is evidence enough that they at least were capable of understanding that they were not supposed to eat it, even if they did not understand sin beyond that single act. Otherwise why would God have told them anything?

That's a good question. Why did God bother telling them anything when He's all knowing and would already know what Eve would do.

They needed to be tested. The covenant he made with Adam and Eve was that they could stay in fellowship with him so long as they were obedient. He decided not to throw them out before they ate the fruit on the grounds that they hadn't actually committed any sin yet. Sort of like The Minority Report.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #28 on: June 17, 2010, 01:48:19 PM »
Quote
Even if Adam and Eve understood at the most basic level that what they were doing was wrong and still did it

But. They. Didn't!

That is the whole point of the tree of knowledge!

Give me the chapter and verse you are referring to because I can't find it.

The fact that God told them not to eat from the tree of knowledge is evidence enough that they at least were capable of understanding that they were not supposed to eat it, even if they did not understand sin beyond that single act. Otherwise why would God have told them anything?

That's a good question. Why did God bother telling them anything when He's all knowing and would already know what Eve would do.

They needed to be tested. The covenant he made with Adam and Eve was that they could stay in fellowship with him so long as they were obedient. He decided not to throw them out before they ate the fruit on the grounds that they hadn't actually committed any sin yet. Sort of like The Minority Report.

If you're talking about the movie, the people were stopped before they committed the murder. Which would make sense: if the apple wasn't meant for humanity, why was it even put in the Garden, and why, knowing they'd eat the apple, did God not throw them out before then so they wouldn't suffer from the 'curse' of the apple?

And can anyone answer the question that started off this thread?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: A Thought On Original Sin
« Reply #29 on: June 17, 2010, 01:51:43 PM »
Well Gen 2 9 is clear that this is the tree of good and evil. genesis 2 25 says they felt no shame.

to be fair it doesn't go into a great deal of detail about the levels of conscience and knowledge of good end evil that Adam and Eve have in the single chapter dealing with it but it is interesting that when the snake asks them whether they can eat from the tree Eve repeats God's instructions parrot-fashion.

In C3 V6 Eve has no qualms about eating the fruit after the snake has told her to, no moments of moral dilemma, no serious pondering, which is interesting since she just repeated the instruction seconds before, to me that tells me that when the snake said it was ok she believed instantly, this is not the action of someone who has any sense of right or wrong.

(before you ask, my Bible is the NIV youth Bible given to me when I was confirmed at about 15)

I understand your interpretation, but it is not spelled out explicitly so. Likewise, scripture is not specific enough for me to rule out the possibility that you are indeed correct. Thus I see two possible and perfectly valid explanations:

God deprived them of the knowledge of all good and evil and set them up for failure so that his master plan for humanity could proceed.

God gave them knowledge of good and evil insofar as how it related to the fruit, while depriving them of all other understanding, but still knew that they would fail his test so that his master plan for humanity could proceed.

Either way, I suppose God was behind it all.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.