Originally posted by vistesdI'm glad I asked 🙂
Literalist/historicists (“fundamentalists” ) say that, with regard to Aesop’s fables, either mice remove thorns from lion’s paws, and animals converse with each other in human language—or else the whole thing is a lie, and there is no meaning to be found in such tales. “Secularists” who buy into the same literalist/historicist view simply dismiss such fables as prima facie meaningless and absurd.
Originally posted by black beetleBe well, along the way. (Same to Maria; I understand!)
Soon I will be off line until Monday; I am happy that I will have a break from my everyday chores even for three days, which I will share them in full with my beautiful Maria
but suddenly I realise that I will miss this fine conversation
a classic quid pro qvo situation afterall
but I 'll catch up🙂
Looking up “propensity” in the dictionary and the thesaurus, I found such synonyms as proclivity, tendency, disposition, predilection, proneness, leaning, susceptibility, etc. The basic definition is given as “a natural inclination or tendency”. All of these seem to fit with what is called the doctrine of “original sin” (again, as opposed to just identifying the first sin).
[Roget’s Thesaurus gives “capacity” and “ability”, which would seem to relate it to “potential” as well.]
An antonym would be “aversion” (given in Webster’s as an antonym for proclivity, for example).
However, suppose I concede the narrower definition of propensity so that it does not mean just potential. Then, if I also concede that only potentiality/capability is required for one to commit a certain action (e.g., sin)— nevertheless, I still will not naturally decide (or even be tempted) to do what I have an aversion for. I will only act against a natural aversion under exceptional extraneous circumstances: e.g., gagging down a bitter medicine because I am ill. (Gagging is a natural aversion response.) In such case, I have the counter-capability to overcome my natural aversion.
Another such circumstance might be that I am tricked into believing that an action I am averse toward (have no propensity for) is, in fact, a good thing to do given the situation. In such a case, I have the potential to be tricked. My failure (sin) may be gullibility. But if it is some unconscious inclination (counter-aversion) that drives my being convinced, then we have that inherent propensity again.
I think the dilemma still holds [and can only be released by choosing some version of either (1) or (2)]. Even if potentiality/capacity is all that is required for one to actually do something, one will only actually do something that is counter to one’s inclination (i.e., is an aversion) if there are some perceived exceptional circumstances (whether the perception is accurate or not).
The questions, in the context of the story, then include:
(i) What were the exceptional circumstances that led Eve/Adam to act in a way that was not their natural inclination to do (if they didn’t already have a propensity for sin)?
Were they simply tricked? And why did God let that trickster be in the garden anyway? And isn’t the ability to be so tricked itself an existential imperfection? The capacity for being tricked is certainly not a requirement of free agency (moral or otherwise).
(ii) Does it make any sense to think of “innocence” as having neither inclination nor aversion (as well as not having knowledge)? In that case, they innocently ate of the tree, and cannot be accused of any intentional “with knowledge aforethought” moral violation. (They probably wouldn’t have even understood s concept such as “disobey”, let alone known that such disobedience might be “wrong” or bad.)
Would this understanding in any way release the dilemma? [See my remarks on “the tragedy of the story”, below.]
(iii) If Adam and Eve acted in innocence, having no propensity toward “evil”, then however one otherwise reads the story, one might talk of “consequences” (as Epi points out); but how could one talk in terms of “punishment” without warping any sense of justness?
(iv) If only after eating of the fruit were their “eyes opened”, so they could know good from bad, right from wrong, etc., why would that lead to some (inheritable) inclination to sin that was not there before? They felt—not delight at what they had done—but terror, guilt and shame. As when a child, who innocently walks around naked and unashamed until a certain age, then learns that s/he should feel ashamed or embarrassed to do such a thing any longer—and so puts on clothes (another metaphor in the story).
The tragedy of the story, in such case, has nothing whatsoever to do with crime and punishment—but with loss of innocence, analogous to loss of health and being afflicted with an illness (shame, existential terror, etc.).
I am not going to undertake an exegesis of the whole story here; I have done that before, from varying perspectives. But I think that my reading of the story would still be along these tragic lines...
_________________________________________________
If “original sin” only refers to potential/capacity, the dilemma still holds: if Adam and Eve didn’t have it, then they couldn’t sin; if they did have it, then it did not come into being as a result of eating the fruit.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow can God eliminate sin unless he eliminates Man's ability to be a free moral agent? IF there is any possibility that Man might sin and he exists eternally, he will eventually sin. So Christ's sacrifice solves nothing; the Saved go to Heaven, but given their status as free moral agents, they all must, sooner or later, sin. God has merely kicked the can down the road.
that they had the propensity to sin is without question, as they were after all, free moral agents, were they not? thus being free moral agents, Adam and Eve could [b]choose to obey God or disobey him. simply having the potential did not make them sinners any more than having the potential to be successful makes one actually successful! therfore ...[text shortened]... seems a bit preachy which was not really my intention, hopefully you can live and let live![/b]
And if he eliminates Man's ability to sin (i.e. his free moral agency) in Heaven, then why didn't he do so in the first place? Why give Man free moral agency if the results would be so repugnant to Man's Maker that He would eventually have to take it away anyway? Did God make a mistake?
Originally posted by no1marauderi see what you are saying, you equate sin with mans ability to be a free moral agent. the confusion perhaps has to do with the understanding of how a 'perfect' human may choose to exercise his morality, which is distinctly different from how an imperfect human may choose to do so. being imperfect he would naturally reflect divine qualities, like love, justice etc etc in a distorted fashion, like what we see today and why the world is in such a mess! this would simply not be possible for someone who had the ability to display perfect justice, or perfect love, the exercise of which in a perfect sense would simply mean that the individual would not sin involuntarily as we do, but it would be as a deliberate act, as was the case with Adam. Christs sacrifice is meant to propitiate or cover our sins, so that we may be granted forgiveness for our involuntary sins until such times that we may reach, physical, spiritual and moral perfection.
How can God eliminate sin unless he eliminates Man's ability to be a free moral agent? IF there is any possibility that Man might sin and he exists eternally, he will eventually sin. So Christ's sacrifice solves nothing; the Saved go to Heaven, but given their status as free moral agents, they all must, sooner or later, sin. God has merely kicked the ca o Man's Maker that He would eventually have to take it away anyway? Did God make a mistake?
your second point is rather excellent! he did not do so because the rightfulness of Gods dominion was being challenged! whether it was beneficial for mankind to rule independently from God or not, and thus whether God had the right to exercise his dominion over mankind, which in essence was raised by the rebellious trio. this issue is still pertinent today and only time will tell if this is the case or not.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSpeaking of "confusion", here's what you said a few pages ago:
i see what you are saying, you equate sin with mans ability to be a free moral agent. the confusion perhaps has to do with the understanding of how a 'perfect' human may choose to exercise his morality, which is distinctly different from how an imperfect human may choose to do so. being imperfect he would naturally reflect divine qualities, like lo ...[text shortened]... trio. this issue is still pertinent today and only time will tell if this is the case or not.
that they [i.e. Adam & Eve] had the propensity to sin is without question, as they were after all, free moral agents, were they not? thus being free moral agents, Adam and Eve could choose to obey God or disobey him.
You say Adam sin was "deliberate" but our sins are "involuntary". So be it. But Adam still sinned and so it is possible for a "perfect" human to sin. How could it be any different? Being a "free moral agent" implies the ability to make moral choices, to sin, does it not? And a human, no matter how "perfect", free to make moral choices has a possibility to sin i.e. disobey God. And given an infinite amount of time, that possibility, no matter how slight, will happen.
So there will be sin in Heaven as long as Man is a "free moral agent". God cannot eradicate sin AND maintain Man has a "free moral agent". By definition.
Originally posted by no1marauderwhat i meant as has been established since was that they never had the propensity in the sense of having a natural inclination, but simply the potential. this was a misunderstanding on my part and was rectified, the mere fact that Adam sinned, while perfect does not negate this fact, for it was a deliberate act as has been established. clearly there are two types of of sin, deliberate and involuntary. i do not nor cannot see that simply having the potential, if given time, that a free moral agent would sin because Christ himself proved otherwise, in that even under the most horrific and trying of circumstances it was possible for a perfect being to keep integrity and remain sinless, yet you maintain that even given a slight chance this would happen, quite contrary to the established evidence.
Speaking of "confusion", here's what you said a few pages ago:
that they [i.e. Adam & Eve] had the propensity to sin is without question, as they were after all, free moral agents, were they not? [b]thus being free moral agents, Adam and Eve could choose to obey God or disobey him.
You say Adam sin was "deliberate ...[text shortened]... cannot eradicate sin AND maintain Man has a "free moral agent". By definition.[/b]
so quite clearly God can and will eradicate sin for those who choose to accept his sovereignty as free moral agents.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIm agreeing with you here Robbie, but what do you think of the angels that sinned? Apparently God did not erradicate sin from His own domain.
what i meant as has been established since was that they never had the propensity in the sense of having a natural inclination, but simply the potential. this was a misunderstanding on my part and was rectified, the mere fact that Adam sinned, while perfect does not negate this fact, for it was a deliberate act as has been established. clearly ther ...[text shortened]... can and will eradicate sin for those who choose to accept his sovereignty as free moral agents.
Originally posted by Rajk999yes Raj my friend, they sinned because they chose to exercise their morality and reject Gods sovereignty. this was a deliberate act of volition as was Adams, not an involuntary one, clearly a perfect individual can exercise his free moral faculty and choose independence. God in his excellence has created men and angels with this faculty and depending on how the individual chooses to exercise it , will depend on whether they are constituted sinful. whether this independence is of any benefit is the other great universal issue and whether God will tolerate it is also of interest.
Im agreeing with you here Robbie, but what do you think of the angels that sinned? Apparently God did not erradicate sin from His own domain.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieChrist could not sin i.e. disobey God because He was God according to Trinitarians. For Christ to sin would be a contradiction in terms. So his example is NO evidence to support your assertion while Adam's example is evidence to support my logical inference. So, of course, is Satan and the "rebellion" in Heaven.
what i meant as has been established since was that they never had the propensity in the sense of having a natural inclination, but simply the potential. this was a misunderstanding on my part and was rectified, the mere fact that Adam sinned, while perfect does not negate this fact, for it was a deliberate act as has been established. clearly ther ...[text shortened]... can and will eradicate sin for those who choose to accept his sovereignty as free moral agents.
Changing terms does not solve the problem though it is a common tactic for some theists here. "Potential" still means there is some possibility that a free moral agent will sin. Given an infinite amount of time (i.e. eternity which it is claimed that the Saved will exist) any possibility will happen. So the Saved will sin in Heaven unless God strips them of their free moral agency status. God will have failed to eradicate sin under your theology.
Originally posted by no1marauderyes i agree, that the trinity is nonsense is well established and essentially a pre Christan doctrine of pagan origin, so i do not think that you can dismiss Christs course of integrity quite so readily, it simply a contradiction for those who advocate the trinity, not for those who are opposed.
Christ could not sin i.e. disobey God because He was God according to Trinitarians. For Christ to sin would be a contradiction in terms. So his example is NO evidence to support your assertion while Adam's example is evidence to support my logical inference. So, of course, is Satan and the "rebellion" in Heaven.
Changing terms does not their free moral agency status. God will have failed to eradicate sin under your theology.
it has already been established, by Raj's point in reference to the Angelic host who evidently followed Satan when he was ousted from the heavenly realm, they too are free moral agents, perfect and like Adam choose to be independent of Gods sovereignty and capable of sinning, therfore why are you trying to impute ulterior motives? have we not been honest in admitting our mistake with regard to the differences between potential and propensity? how is it a common tactic? that there is a possibility for sin is also well established, however, God does not need to tolerate it! for by then the issues will have been settled, in that, God has right of dominion over his creation, that man has failed to prove that independence from god is beneficial in any way, that the Satanic lie that God was withholding something 'good', from mankind is also baseless and that theocracy has been fully vindicated.
actually i myself do not pertain to the idea that the 'saved', will live in heaven, no no, i am awaiting an earthly paradise, for as far as i can discern, Gods purpose with regard to the earth, that he gave to Adam, to care for it and cultivate and look after it has not diminished.