- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Firstly what is sin?
I was thiniking that sin (according to a theist) might be the conscious violation of God's law. This would entail that for one to commit sin, they must know that his actions are sinful. Thus, he must know the difference between good and evil (atheist squabbling aside).
Now I know someone like Vistesd might correct me, but didn't Adam and Eve eat from the tree that gave knowledge of good and evil?
Surely this implies that before eating the fruit from the tree, they did not know the difference between good and evil?
So how could they have know what they were doing was wrong?
I know that Genesis is largely interpreted as an allegorical truth, but surely this undermines the whole concept of original sin?
And if the fall of Adam is inextricably connected to the rise of Christ, then surely Christ didn't take any sin away, since Adam could not have committed sin?
So why did Christ have to die?
Originally posted by Conrau Ki think that any violation of god's law is a sin. it has to be, or original sin could not be called such. when i think of the story of adam and eve, i think sin is only there to show that god meant for humans to be part of the natural order but humans reject that and discover/invent morality. there is no morality between predator and prey. so we're out of the garden, out of our place in the natural world.
Firstly what is sin?
I was thiniking that sin (according to a theist) might be the conscious violation of God's law. This would entail that for one to commit sin, they must know that his actions are sinful. Thus, he must know the difference between good and evil (atheist squabbling aside).
Now I know someone like Vistesd might correct me, but didn't A ...[text shortened]... ake any sin away, since Adam could not have committed sin?
So why did Christ have to die?
Originally posted by Conrau Ki ain't an expert on this, but i'm pretty sure this pertains to a time when we die.
Firstly what is sin?
I was thiniking that sin (according to a theist) might be the conscious violation of God's law. This would entail that for one to commit sin, they must know that his actions are sinful. Thus, he must know the difference between good and evil (atheist squabbling aside).
Now I know someone like Vistesd might correct me, but didn't A ake any sin away, since Adam could not have committed sin?
So why did Christ have to die?
i think a lot of Christians have a false justification of the sins they have all committed under the impression they have been made anew. sure... it may be a taste, but the true understanding, meaning and purpose will only take affect on an individuals accepted entry into heaven.
Although it appears to be a simple concept at its face, original sin brings aspects of varied origins into play. It isn't enough to simply say the woman ate the fruit, gave some to the man, and thus was original sin born.
In the Garden, four free wills were in action: both human's, Satan's and God's. Only God's free will was (and is) immutable, eternal and perfect. The human free wills were not tainted by any failure, and therefore, having been created without sin by God's immediate acts, their point of contact with God was necessarily His love. They were worthy of His personal love, as there existed affinity between the three.
Man's free will was subject to change which could lead to imperfection, but the only way this would have been possible would have been to eat the forbidden fruit. However, the weakness of love as a point of contact with man is found in human volition. God's love could not provide eternal security for man because of that "spoiler." This is the tip of a much bigger iceberg, but it warrants being made.
The woman's vanity in considering the fruit was not a sin. The man's thoughts, relative to assessing his wife's situation and deciding to join her, were not a sin, either. That bears some consideration, in light of the many teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, relative to our thought life. The only sin possible for either of them was to break ranks with perfection and join Satan's policy toward life.
In the Garden, there were two trees associated with the business of their spiritual life. One was the tree of lives (not, as erroneously translated in the KJV, the tree of life), and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The first tree represented Adam and the woman's positive volition toward the plan of God. As long as they continued to follow God's plan, they enjoyed the fruit from the tree of lives.
The second tree represented Satan's plan. This tree is not the tree of the knowledge of good or evil, but good and evil, linking similar concepts. "Good and evil" is the sum total of Satan's policy for ruling the world and for proving himself to be as good as God. Eating from this tree was to acquiesce to Satan's policies and plans.
When we understand Satan's reason for revolting against his own Creator and recognize his current objectives, we have a frame of reference for understanding evil. He promotes human good and good deeds apart from the filling of the Holy Spirit and doctrine, or any solutions contrary to the laws of divine establishment.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFreaky you missed my point.
Although it appears to be a simple concept at its face, original sin brings aspects of varied origins into play. It isn't enough to simply say the woman ate the fruit, gave some to the man, and thus was original sin born.
In the Garden, four free wills were in action: both human's, Satan's and God's. Only God's free will was (and is) immutable, eterna ...[text shortened]... d doctrine, or any solutions contrary to the laws of divine establishment.
Consider this. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they suddenly realised that they were naked. My bible tells me that this came with the revelation that such nakedness is in someway wrong. Presumably, they had thus been committing wrong up until that moment. However, we wouldn’t qualify that as a sin since they were not conscious at the time that it was wrong (i.e. when they were frolicking around Eden with no clothes on).
The important part to recognize in Genesis is that it dissociates morality (the knowledge of what is good and bad) from God. Thus, although rejecting God, they were not committing wrong because they were not conscious of what is right and wrong and because God (in Genesis) has no bearing on what is right and wrong (although we now identify God as the origin of right and wrong). How could their actions be any more wrong then their nakedness?
If I were to remove your understanding of right and wrong, would you continue to do what is right?
I suspect your answer will be no. So how can you expect Adam and Eve to?
They exited a system which was pure perfection, and determined to enter into a system that was 'good and evil.' Prior to their exit from perfection, 'good and evil' was unknown. There was no 'good and evil' system in place; merely one of possibility.
They acted on that possibility, and brought 'good and evil' into the world.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThats immaterial. If they brought "good and evil into the world". Then by implication it didn't exist before hand. Thus, they did not commit a sin.
They exited a system which was pure perfection, and determined to enter into a system that was 'good and evil.' Prior to their exit from perfection, 'good and evil' was unknown. There was no 'good and evil' system in place; merely one of possibility.
They acted on that possibility, and brought 'good and evil' into the world.
ConrauK: Now I know someone like Vistesd might correct me...
Not me. 🙂
FreakyKBH: One was the tree of lives (not, as erroneously translated in the KJV, the tree of life)...
This is technically correct, and I admit opens up some interesting hermeneutical possibilities. On the other hand, chayim is often rendered in the singular (e.g., l’chaim, to life!). Similarly, elohim.
As for the rest, you already know that you and I disagree—though I am not wedded to a single interpretation, and I acknowledge the Christian one as a valid “midrash,” and appreciate your articulation of it. Since our impasse is paradigmatic, it allows for disagreement without disagreeableness, and we’re at least both able to “look into” the other’s paradigm and find things both informative and interesting. So rather than resurrect the thread on “A Tale of Two Trees,” I’ll read your posts here as your (continued) responsa to that one. 🙂
Originally posted by vistesdelohim?
ConrauK: [b]Now I know someone like Vistesd might correct me...
Not me. 🙂
FreakyKBH: One was the tree of lives (not, as erroneously translated in the KJV, the tree of life)...
This is technically correct, and I admit opens up some interesting hermeneutical possibilities. On the other hand, chayim is often rendered in the singu ...[text shortened]... n “A Tale of Two Trees,” I’ll read your posts here as your (continued) responsa to that one. 🙂[/b]
Originally posted by Conrau KNot by implication, but rather by emphasis. There was only one wrong possible for the man and the woman: either they continue their positive volition toward God's system of thought by eating of the tree of lives, or they reject that system and enter into the alternative system, "good and evil."
Thats immaterial. If they brought "good and evil into the world". Then by implication it didn't exist before hand. Thus, they did not commit a sin.
While the fruit stayed on the tree and was not consumed by the humans, the entire "good and evil" system was nothing but a possibility. Their 'perfect lives with perfect God' situation was the reality into which the serpent 'suggested' (to the woman) a better plan, a better system....one which tickled the woman's vanity to gain the knowledge she never knew she wanted. Talk about creating an eager want in others!
Reader's Digest version: the "good and evil" system did not exist, except as a possibility, prior to their partaking of the fruit. The prohibition against the fruit was the only sin possible.
Originally posted by vistesdOne very interesting and compelling aspect is the use of a tree at all. Although our society doesn't regard trees as did previous generations, trees figure very prominently throughout biblical Christianity.
ConrauK: [b]Now I know someone like Vistesd might correct me...
Not me. 🙂
FreakyKBH: One was the tree of lives (not, as erroneously translated in the KJV, the tree of life)...
This is technically correct, and I admit opens up some interesting hermeneutical possibilities. On the other hand, chayim is often rendered in the singu ...[text shortened]... n “A Tale of Two Trees,” I’ll read your posts here as your (continued) responsa to that one. 🙂[/b]
In a perfect environment, the Garden of Eden, the fruit of two trees was offered. Between heaven and (the cursed) earth, a Man hanged on another tree, His work is now the offering.
We're closer than you think...as near as we can tell, of course.😉
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI accept that they entered an imperfect world but I refuse to accept the notion that in doing so they committed a sin. I'm also curious, if having no understanding of good and evil, how could they be accountable for their actions? And hence, why should they be in an imperfect wolrd? According to you they didn't commit wrong because no wrong existed at the time.
Not by implication, but rather by emphasis. There was only one wrong possible for the man and the woman: either they continue their positive volition toward God's system of thought by eating of the tree of lives, or they reject that system and enter into the alternative system, "good and evil."
While the fruit stayed on the tree and was not consumed by ...[text shortened]... rtaking of the fruit. The prohibition against the fruit was the only sin possible.