1. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    26 Apr '12 12:12
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    I have often wondered about this particular extract from the Eden story; it seems that God would have preferred mankind to be 'amoral' rather than; 'moral' as opposed to 'immoral', which would not clash with JS357s interpretation:-

    "The Eden story tells of that tragic time when humans become aware that we have to control our natural individualistic instincts and obey man-made rules in order to have the benefits of living in a social group."
    I have often wondered about this particular extract from the Eden story; it seems that God would have preferred mankind to be 'amoral' rather than; 'moral' as opposed to 'immoral', which would not clash with JS357s interpretation:-

    "The Eden story tells of that tragic time when humans become aware that we have to control our natural individualistic instincts and obey man-made rules in order to have the benefits of living in a social group."


    God wanted not a good man. God wanted a GOD-man.

    He was created neutral, innocent, and directly instructed by the commands of God.

    But he as supposed to partake of the tree of life. That would have moved him from that neutral and innocent creature to a creatured "organically" united to God possessing God within him as his natural life mingled with the divine and uncreated Person.

    God did not simply want man to be good. He wanted to man to possess the uncreated Divine Person in a mingled and united way of blending.

    What does this mingled - united - incorporated with Divine life man look like ?

    We must study the Person of Jesus Christ to see this. Jesus Christ is what God meant by man. And it is not that Christ is an enigma. It is rather that we have fallen so far from normality.

    Christ is God-man. And His eternal purpose is not to simply produe good people but to produce God-people. That is people united, mingled, blended with God Himself as their life.

    The culmination of this GODNIZATION of humanity is seen in the marriage of Christ and His wife or bride the New Jerusalem at the end of the Bible.
  2. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    26 Apr '12 15:541 edit
    Originally posted by jaywill
    [quote] "Long, I tried to understand this on a purely mythical basis."

    How you use the word "mythical" or "myth" is critical to understanding what you mean here.

    Dictionary.com has as the first definition,"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explan and resurrection of the Son of God - Jesus Christ.
    I will try to reply here to your saying I would have to explain a little more.

    I said: ' The "phenomenon of nature" in this case, might be our sense that there are actions and situations that are right or wrong, that we should or should not do or allow. Is this more or less what you mean? If so, I think you actually are reading the text of Genesis on original sin, as myth. '

    You said: I think you would have to explain a little more to me what you mean by these last two sentences.

    What I mean in these last two sentences is to apply the dictionary.com definition of "myth" to the case at hand -- the story of the fall. I use the phrase "phenomenon of nature" to mean the phenomenon that is our sense of right and wrong. I see the story of the fall as addressing the ancient, accurate observation that we seem distinctly different from the "lower" creatures in two ways: we are uniquely, it seems, given a moral sense; and we uniquely have every reason to need it. That is, we are "natural-born sinners" who need a moral compass. This innate sinfulness is explained in the story, as having been in us since the first human. That is a way to say it is intrinsic to being human, as opposed to being a "lower" creature. (This distinction is a bit fuzzier than first imagined.)

    A naturalistic explanation of this phenomenon of sin could be that we are large-brained social animals (LBSAs). We see nowadays that other medium- and LBSA's have social structures that depend on proto- or rudimentary social rules and controls, that play on somewhat complex emotions like guilt and shame, to help enforce rules of behavior in the absence of direct supervision. This results in our "being good when no one is looking." The story of the fall is in some ways, an early semi-naturalistic way that the members of a tribe, sitting around the cave fire, could tell themselves how and why this social sense is both innate, and is important. They probably didn't spend much time trying to separate out what parts of the story were justified empirically (the natural) and what parts were justified spiritually (the supernatural). After all, animism had it that all of nature was somehow full of active agents. An early CSI-mentality.

    You said: 'I only use the phrase "original sin" to communicate to the person who takes the initiative to use it in discussion with me. The phrase "original sin" never comes up in my theological speaking initiated by me.'

    I don't use it either, but it seems to refer to a really important element in Christianity to have a human flaw that calls for a remedy, at the center of the faith -- it seems to explain the need for a redeemer, whether it is called original sin or something else. Rather than the need for a redeemer being what is called for by this flaw, I would say it is the opportunity for redemption, that is presented in the story. What I am left with is the sad feeling that those early story tellers and their audience were longing for a simpler time, when they lived without the need to discern good and evil.

    There is much in what you have said that I will think about and possibly comment further.
  3. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    26 Apr '12 16:55
    Originally posted by jaywill

    in the video the guy says that no matter what we do in life we always have the seed of sin within us, it is passed down the line from parent to child.

    surely if this is how it works, god passed the seed to adam.



    Without reviewing the video, let me just respond to your comment above.

    I have thought about this for a long long ti ...[text shortened]... second man.

    This reflective principle is discussed mainly in [b]Romans chapter 5
    .[/b]
    "Now, I don't understand everything about this. But it seems that from the time Adam ate of that fruit the sin nature came into man. "

    I don't think the "sin nature" came into man. I think it has been inherent, at first in a non-sinful way, as what I will call ego-drive, in all beings that have the mental capacity to form a sense of self-awareness as a being with "interests" -- roughly, as beings that can HAVE and be aware of self-interests.

    Sinful behaviors are often those that place the self above the group, with some exceptions (exceptions that deserve discussion). This natural self-interest, in beings that had it, became sin-nature when the advantages of living in cooperative groups became so strong that this cooperation needed reinforcement against the ego drive, through the institution of rules and most importantly, internalization and self-enforcement of these rules.

    Our sin nature shows itself when we are in turmoil over the conflict between ego and group. But the group interests had to be exalted further, to have a chance.

    That is, ego-driven (sinful) behavior is so strongly motivated that it takes God to counter it. We can't do it alone. That is, at least, a way to explain God.
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    26 Apr '12 16:59
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    I thought married people humping was OK according to the Bible. 😛
    But Adam and Eve were not married, hence the sin. 😛
  5. Windsor, Ontario
    Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    26 Apr '12 17:53
    Originally posted by whodey
    But Adam and Eve were not married, hence the sin. 😛
    humping your own sister was apparently okay at one time, too.
  6. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    26 Apr '12 17:552 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    But Adam and Eve were not married, hence the sin. 😛
    The earth was like Kentucky back then. You don't need you no minister, and you can marry your pretty lil' sister. 😵

    Dammit, VoidSpirit, stop stealing my jokes. 😛
  7. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    26 Apr '12 18:261 edit
    Originally posted by JS357
    "Now, I don't understand everything about this. But it seems that from the time Adam ate of that fruit the sin nature came into man. "

    I don't think the "sin nature" came into man. I think it has been inherent, at first in a non-sinful way, as what I will call ego-drive, in all beings that have the mental capacity to form a sense of self-awareness as a bein takes God to counter it. We can't do it alone. That is, at least, a way to explain God.
    I don't think the "sin nature" came into man. I think it has been inherent, at first in a non-sinful way, as what I will call ego-drive, in all beings that have the mental capacity to form a sense of self-awareness as a being with "interests" -- roughly, as beings that can HAVE and be aware of self-interests.


    I am considering the meanings of your previous [edited] post. In the mean time my response to this.

    I believe that when God created man God pronounced that His creation was "very good". I do not believe God would have pronounced this had man been created with the sin nature.

    "And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good." (Genesis 1:31)

    I will address a possible pushback to this latter.

    So Genesis records God pronouncing His whole creation "very good" after the crown of creation is made - human beings. In addition the book of Ecclesiastes says that God made man "upright".

    "See, this alone have I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes." (Ecc. 7:29)

    God did not create man a scheming one. "God made man upright". Sometime afterward man became crooked and a scheming one by nature.

    God warned man that the day he would eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would be the day death would enter into his experience. The Apostle Paul couples sin and death as entering into Adam and his descendents' experience through disobedience, which must mean his disobedient act in eating of the forbidden fruit.

    "for just as trhough the disobedience of one man the many were constituted sinners ..." (Rom. 5:19) [/b] Human beings were constituted sinners because of disobedient act of one man. Their constitution was altered as a result of one man's disobedience.

    I judge then that God did not create man constituted with this sinning nature. Man took it into himself when Adam committed his act of disobedience.

    "Therefore just as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin, death; and thus death passed on to all men because all have sinned - " (Rom. 5:12)

    I understand that the act of Adam's disobeying God and in taking into himself the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil constituted Adam and his descendents as sin infested - Satanified, corrupted and poisoned and dying spiritually and physically.
  8. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    26 Apr '12 18:40
    Originally posted by JS357
    "Now, I don't understand everything about this. But it seems that from the time Adam ate of that fruit the sin nature came into man. "

    I don't think the "sin nature" came into man. I think it has been inherent, at first in a non-sinful way, as what I will call ego-drive, in all beings that have the mental capacity to form a sense of self-awareness as a bein ...[text shortened]... takes God to counter it. We can't do it alone. That is, at least, a way to explain God.


    That is, ego-driven (sinful) behavior is so strongly motivated that it takes God to counter it. We can't do it alone. That is, at least, a way to explain God.


    I think there is something here that touches my understanding. I can't elaborate now.

    But there must be a perfect balance between form and freedom. There must be a perfect balance of unity and diversity. In the consummation of God's eternal purpose there must be perfect balance of the individual and the corporate expression.

    After all John speaks of the Vine and the abiding branches. And Paul speaks of the Body and the many members.

    And there is more I could write on this balance. So I think there is something to what you wrote here. We all to quick only see individualistic salvation. We too often miss the love between the brothers seals a corporate expression of an aggregate union of God and man.

    We notice Christ's mighty prayer for the complete fulfillment of God's eternal purpose:

    "That they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that You have sent Me . . . I in them, and You in Me, that they all may be perfected into one, that the world may know that You have sent Me .." (See John 17:21-22)
  9. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    26 Apr '12 19:18
    Originally posted by jaywill


    That is, ego-driven (sinful) behavior is so strongly motivated that it takes God to counter it. We can't do it alone. That is, at least, a way to explain God.


    I think there is something here that touches my understanding. I can't elaborate now.

    But there must be a perfect balance between form and freedom. There must be a perfe ...[text shortened]... cted into one, that the world may know that You have sent Me .." (See John 17:21-22)
    [/b]
    I will address two items from your last two posts here.

    First, your "I believe that when God created man God pronounced that His creation was "very good". I do not believe God would have pronounced this had man been created with the sin nature. "

    I think that the story affirms that that the beings here on earth (or anywhere) did not manifest sin nature until they recognized the conflict between ego values and 'corporate' or community values. This took a mind that could reflect on such things. Presumably you believe Adam was fully formed in these respects. I think the story tells us that man's development was incomplete up until the eviction from the garden. "Social man" was not formed until then. I imagine the storytellers saying "There was a time when we were innocent, and" -- if they had the concepts, might have added -- "free of the pangs of conscience or any need to have such pangs." They would have been right, even according to the evolutionary biologists.

    Second, your "But there must be a perfect balance between form and freedom."

    Totally agree. It is hard to talk about these things without shading the issue toward one side or the other, but the problem exists because the perfect balance is the position that, when we are at our best, we seek. On either side there is a slippery slope.

    The Genesis story about all this, is really chock full of allegory and symbolism, and also, I think, represents a sort of (accurate) psycho-historical summary of the emergence of man into a social being, and the conflicts that came with that.

    This is not to say that the richness of these non-literal readings is, in itself, an argument against a more literal reading. I don't want to engage here, in that sort of argument, on either side.
  10. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    27 Apr '12 22:201 edit
    Originally posted by JS357
    I will address two items from your last two posts here.

    First, your "I believe that when God created man God pronounced that His creation was "very good". I do not believe God would have pronounced this had man been created with the sin nature. "

    I think that the story affirms that that the beings here on earth (or anywhere) did not manifest sin nature reading. I don't want to engage here, in that sort of argument, on either side.
    This is not to say that the richness of these non-literal readings is, in itself, an argument against a more literal reading. I don't want to engage here, in that sort of argument, on either side.


    Frankly, neither do I want to argue. I am not interested in winning arguments just for its own sake.

    I too am a seeker. I do have some feeling about what I have learned and been taught about God's eternal economy. I am willing to share. I am able to defend.

    But just to beat people down in arguments for some ego satisfaction ?? How about we just seek the truth ?

    When I read in Genesis about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil verses the tree of life I am persuaded that this writing is the product of a wisdom higher than mere human wisdom.

    To me it does not have the same flavor, say, as the legend of Pandora's Box.

    Think of it. The knowledge of good and evil on ONE tree. And a tree of life.
  11. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    27 Apr '12 23:34
    Originally posted by jaywill
    This is not to say that the richness of these non-literal readings is, in itself, an argument against a more literal reading. I don't want to engage here, in that sort of argument, on either side.


    Frankly, neither do I want to argue. I am not interested in winning arguments just for its own sake.

    I too am a seeker. I do have some fee ...[text shortened]... ora's Box.

    Think of it. The knowledge of good and evil on ONE tree. And a tree of life.
    "When I read in Genesis about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil verses the tree of life I am persuaded that this writing is the product of a wisdom higher than mere human wisdom."

    I would agree it is a remarkable mythological rendering, that addresses a basic human issue, and that keeps unfolding more and more as a person's wisdom develops. But I think it is logically impossible to look at a piece of writing and conclude that its wisdom exceeds that of humans. Either people can appreciate the wisdom, which means it is within their reach, or people cannot appreciate it, which means it appears to be nonsense. The wisdom it exhibits grows with the growth of its reader.
  12. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    27 Apr '12 23:54
    Originally posted by JS357
    "When I read in Genesis about [b]the tree of the knowledge of good and evil verses the tree of life I am persuaded that this writing is the product of a wisdom higher than mere human wisdom."

    I would agree it is a remarkable mythological rendering, that addresses a basic human issue, and that keeps unfolding more and more as a person's wisdom dev ...[text shortened]... means it appears to be nonsense. The wisdom it exhibits grows with the growth of its reader.[/b]
    In the matter of community verses individualism, it is our experience and the Bible's teaching, that we have to be one with Him in order to be one with one another.

    It is union with God which accomplished union between man and man. And it is the verticle relationship which is the strength of the horizontal bond.

    We should not think that we can be united only by a little more all around tolerance and acceptance of one another. But to with draw from sinning brings up to God and therefore brings us together.

    " I will dwell among them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people."

    Therefore come out from their midst and be separeted, says the Lord, and do not touch what is unclean; and I will welcome you"


    It is God's RECEIVING of the called out ones which unites.

    But before you comment on that, I would like you to comment on what you think about the whole Tower of Babel incident. There the people of the earth were united.

    Did you notice that God scattered them ? I use to not understand this as I thought it was a good thing that man had one language and was all united.

    What do you think ?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree