Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The story of original sin doesn't make sense.

Options
  • 19-01-2008 1:17am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2


    From what I understand from the story of the garden of eden, Man was created in the garden essentially as a perfect being, without sin. But also created without the knowledge of good and evil (being that when he eats the fruit from the tree of knowledge, he suddenly gains the knowledge that he has sinned).

    How then can you blame Adam or Eve for eating from the tree even if they were directly told not to?

    Being created without the knowledge of good and evil they are essentially robots without right and wrong programming. If they do something wrong it doesn't make the robot evil, it just means they don't know the difference between right and wrong. Until you give it the right programming (they eat the fruit) you can't essentially blame them for doing wrong things because they don't know the difference. To them its just another option.

    So if you wouldn't blame the robot without the programming why blame the man in the same position?

    How could he have truly committed original sin if he had no idea what he was doing was wrong untill he did it?


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    qualitee wrote: »
    From what I understand from the story of the garden of eden, Man was created in the garden essentially as a perfect being, without sin. But also created without the knowledge of good and evil (being that when he eats the fruit from the tree of knowledge, he suddenly gains the knowledge that he has sinned).

    How then can you blame Adam or Eve for eating from the tree even if they were directly told not to?

    Being created without the knowledge of good and evil they are essentially robots without right and wrong programming. If they do something wrong it doesn't make the robot evil, it just means they don't know the difference between right and wrong. Until you give it the right programming (they eat the fruit) you can't essentially blame them for doing wrong things because they don't know the difference. To them its just another option.

    So if you wouldn't blame the robot without the programming why blame the man in the same position?

    How could he have truly committed original sin if he had no idea what he was doing was wrong untill he did it?


    But they did know that if they ate of it then they would surely die. They did not know what “to die” meant. They had life eternal; death was as abstract to them as eternal life is to us today. They knew very well that God said No to this one tree. They didn’t know good and evil but they knew that. Is knowing that you’re not supposed to do something in and of itself good or evil? No, its just knowledge that if you do it you will die, which as already pointed out they did not know anyhting about yet either.

    But anyway let us assume that the story is indeed true (and I do believe it is but so what). If we assume it is true then put yourself in God’s position if you can. You are God and you create things by merely speaking. What you say becomes fact, this is the kind of power that you have. So you speak the universe into existence, you speak the earth and the fullness thereof into existence and you also speak Adam and Eve into existence. All your curses and blessings come via your Word and you are faithful to it even to your own hurt. You then speak to them saying that of all the trees in the garden you may eat but of the tree of the knowledge of good an evil you may not eat for in the day that you eat you shall surely die. So at this point Adam and Eve have not yet the knowledge of good and evil but they have life eternal, this tells us that the knowledge of good an evil is not essential to having eternal life. So along comes the devil and says to Eve, “did God really say that you would die if you eat of the tree?” She said “yes He did say that.” He then says “you won’t die, in fact if you eat of it then you will be like God”. So we have God saying one thing and the devil saying another. Like I already pointed out above, to Adam and Eve death was as abstract to them then as eternal life is to us today, they didn’t know what death was but God did speak of it and told them how it would come. It had not yet entered the world though. It could only enter the world if they did what God said would cause it. Namely to eat of the tree. This they did by believing what the devil said and not what God said. Now as creator you have the right to lay down the terms and conditions to your creation don’t you? Which said terms and conditions were simple: “Eat = die” Don’t eat = live” you don’t even need to be in kindergarten to understand that. You gave them everything but held back that one little tree. This tree became the most attractive tree because it was God’s no no tree. If you read the record you’ll see that the devil actually found Eve looking at it when he lied to her. She in turn tempted Adam and he also ate. Simply put they believed the devil and disbelieved God.

    Now for God to be faithful to His Word they must now die which they started to do when you banished them from the Garden. (Eden by the way means “Heart of God”) So, you are God and you are the source of all life and you are also faithful to your Word. They have been banished from you the source of all life and are thus alienated and are dying. So you now have a problem. You do not want Adam and his descendants to die eternally so you put into affect your fail safe system whereby you can break down the barrier that has been put up and still be faithful to your word, which is what unfolds if you read the record right through to the New Testament. The first thing God did for them when they were banished was to clothe their nakedness with the skins of an animal. This is the very first type of Christ in the Bible and from here the revelation proceeds right up to the fulfilment of these types from Jacob’s Stone through the Tabernacle and the ark of the covenant and all the feast days as outlined in Numbers 23 including the feats of Passover. Christ was the fulfilment of them all even if there are 3 left to be fulfilled which shall be fulfilled in their time.

    Anyway the scene is like this. God is in heaven with all his angels. One of them (Lucifer) rebels and a third of heaven’s angels go with him. They are cast out and there is now a void in heaven. God wants to fill the void and creates Adam from the dust of the earth for this very purpose but after the effect of the first vile rebellion in heaven God places a test tree. He wants “trusters” in what He says now, no more con artist which Lucifer revealed himself to be. All they have to do is believe what He (God) says and act on it, the action in this case is not to eat the fruit of the no no tree. They failed but there was a fail safe plan in place for fallen Adam that was not there for fallen angels, namely the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the earth. Apparently their (Lucifer et all) rebellion was so vile that it turned God off on them forever, but not so for Adam and his descendants. God goes to work to redeem Adam’s descendants and postpones their deaths giving them a natural death as the life they had been given waned. A day with the Lord is as a thousand years an thousand years is as a day, if you read the genealogies of the antediluvian descendants of Adam you’ll notice that none of them lived up to or longer than a thousand years so in a sense in the day they ate they surely did die but not forever only a natural death. From then till now God has been looking for people who will believe what He says, who act on His Word, who trust Him. It is these people who will fill the void left by Satan and his angels and who will inherit eternal life. But because of Adam’s sin Satan has access back to the heavens by default, any power Adam had defaulted to Satan when Adam sinned. Satan is there in heaven to accuse Job and he was there to accuse Joshua the High Priest in Zachariah’s vision and is still there today to accuse all of us before God. Jesus comes and breaks down the barrier put up by Adam’s sin by taking the punishment Adam was to get on Himself. He (Jesus) is now seated (seated being a work finished picture) at the right hand of God making intercession for us. It is He whom God points to when the devil accuses us now. He is our advocate with the father. No longer are we seen as sinners if we just trust in God’s Word. When you have faith in God’s Word you are covered by Christ sacrifice just like the children of Israel were spared death when they put the blood of the lamb on their doors and their lintels. The death angel passed over their house from whence that feast get its name. Christ is our Passover lamb and lives forever and it is He whom we shall rule and reign with in the Kingdom of God forever.

    That is of course if Jesus actually rose from the dead as a fact of History. It’s all balderdash if He didn’t.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,057 ✭✭✭Wacker


    The Garden of Eden story doesn't make sense, but for a totally different reason to the one mentioned by the OP. If Adam and Eve had eternal life in the Garden of Eden, but they faced expulsion once they ate the fruit of the forbidden tree (i.e. they will be there until they ate from the tree, even if it takes a billion years), then isn't in ineivitable that they would eat from the tree? I mean, by my understanding is that there was no other way for them to leave the Garden of Eden, regardless of the time involved. Sounds like a raw deal to me.

    I don't think my logic is wrong here, but please feel free to correct me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wacker wrote: »
    If Adam and Eve had eternal life in the Garden of Eden, but they faced expulsion once they ate the fruit of the forbidden tree (i.e. they will be there until they ate from the tree, even if it takes a billion years), then isn't in ineivitable that they would eat from the tree?

    No. Why would it be inevitable? Maybe you are speaking on behalf of yourself, but that doesn't mean we'd all do it.
    I mean, by my understanding is that there was no other way for them to leave the Garden of Eden, regardless of the time involved. Sounds like a raw deal to me.

    I don't think there is a definitive explaination of the Adam and Eve story around. It certainly reads like a very brief explaination. However, the important detail is what God was revealing, i.e. Adam was a perfect man, he sinned, and through sin death entered the world and someone just as perfect will be required to pay that debt, which leads us to Christ. There may be symbolism etc in the story, I'm not sure, but the message which we are given in the Adam and Eve account is enough to know what we need to know.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,057 ✭✭✭Wacker


    JimiTime wrote: »
    No. Why would it be inevitable? Maybe you are speaking on behalf of yourself, but that doesn't mean we'd all do it.

    Hold on there - no need to get defensive. I'm talking from a purely logical perspective here. There's no need to bring in my own character into the equation.
    My understandig of the scenario is that Adam and Eve were going to be in the Garden of Eden until they eat the fruit, and there was no other way that they could leave. Is this wrong? I'm not particularly knowlegable of Genesis, so I might be. If I am right about that, then how could God be surprised that they did eat the fruit? It had to happen eventually.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wacker wrote: »
    Hold on there - no need to get defensive. I'm talking from a purely logical perspective here. There's no need to bring in my own character into the equation.
    My understandig of the scenario is that Adam and Eve were going to be in the Garden of Eden until they eat the fruit, and there was no other way that they could leave. Is this wrong? I'm not particularly knowlegable of Genesis, so I might be. If I am right about that, then how could God be surprised that they did eat the fruit? It had to happen eventually.

    I don't see how Jimi is being defensive. He simply disagreed with you, which does tend to happen on internet discussion fora.

    I am unaware of any statement or implication in Genesis that there was no other way of leaving the Garden. I would have thought Adam and Eve were free to walk out of the place anytime they wanted.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,057 ✭✭✭Wacker


    PDN wrote: »
    I don't see how Jimi is being defensive. He simply disagreed with you, which does tend to happen on internet discussion fora.

    I can handle disagreement. The fact that he wrote "Maybe you are speaking on behalf of yourself, but that doesn't mean we'd all do it" implies that I would be more open to temptation than others. I don't think this is my imagination, but if it was, I'll take my tetchy response back.
    PDN wrote: »
    I am unaware of any statement or implication in Genesis that there was no other way of leaving the Garden. I would have thought Adam and Eve were free to walk out of the place anytime they wanted.

    I thought they were immortal though? If they were, then the ineivitability of the whole thing remains.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wacker wrote: »
    I thought they were immortal though? If they were, then the ineivitability of the whole thing remains.

    Sorry, I'm not getting your point. Immortal or not, I don't see that there was any inevitability about it. They were free to obey or not to obey. They were free to come or to go. They made the wrong choice.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    What doesn't make sense abou the story to me is that if they were so perfect, then why did temptation affect them?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    What doesn't make sense abou the story to me is that if they were so perfect, then why did temptation affect them?

    They were created innocent (like a little kid) not perfect (mature and having developed a good moral character).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,057 ✭✭✭Wacker


    PDN wrote: »
    Sorry, I'm not getting your point. Immortal or not, I don't see that there was any inevitability about it. They were free to obey or not to obey. They were free to come or to go. They made the wrong choice.
    Any possibility becomes an ineivitability over an infinite timeframe.
    To illustrate, can you conceive any other way that this story could possibly have ended? I certainly can't.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wacker wrote: »
    Any possibility becomes an ineivitability over an infinite timeframe.
    To illustrate, can you conceive any other way that this story could possibly have ended? I certainly can't.

    Yes, I can conceive many other ways it could have ended.

    For example, after a set period (a week, a year or any other period of time) God might have said, "OK, chaps, you've passed the test with flying colours and resisted the temptation so I'm going to rip that pesky tree out of the Garden and let you live in eternal bliss."

    The Genesis story does not demand that the opportunity for sin would last forever. It could easily have been like "Who wants to be a millionaire" with Chris Tarrant as the serpent saying, "Is that your final answer? Are you definitely going to refuse to eat the fruit?" :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭the dee


    It looks to me like god wanted us to eat the fruit. Knowing his own creations he would know that if you forbid something it makes it all the more attractive. By eating the fruit we attained knowledge of good and evil, we attained reason, logic and accountability and much more freedom. Surely god would want us to have these attributes as then when / if we come to worship him it is done freely. Isn't that better than perfect automata worshipping god without knowing why?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    PDN wrote: »
    They were created innocent (like a little kid) not perfect (mature and having developed a good moral character).
    I thought the garden of eden was supposed to be a place of eternal bliss. Surely temptation is not a factor in this.....

    Also, if they were innocent how were they to know better?


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    PDN wrote: »
    Yes, I can conceive many other ways it could have ended.

    For example, after a set period (a week, a year or any other period of time) God might have said, "OK, chaps, you've passed the test with flying colours and resisted the temptation so I'm going to rip that pesky tree out of the Garden and let you live in eternal bliss."

    The Genesis story does not demand that the opportunity for sin would last forever. It could easily have been like "Who wants to be a millionaire" with Chris Tarrant as the serpent saying, "Is that your final answer? Are you definitely going to refuse to eat the fruit?" :)
    om, God is supposed to be omniscient and 'exists outside of time'
    So he knew perfectly well 'before' he even invented the universe that Adam and Eve would be unable to resist temptation. He made adam and eve, he mate the tree, and He also made the snake that tempted Eve. It's a basic case of entrapment.

    It makes no sense that anything could happen that god didn't already want to happen because him being omnipotent, whatever he wants, happens. (from the lords prayer " Thy will be done"

    Everything that has happened on this planet has to have been the will of God, and could never have been any other way.
    (free will is totally in-compatable with an everlasting omnipotent, omniscient god that 'exists outside of time' Its a more determanist world view than any physical causality theory.)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭the dee


    Akrasia wrote: »
    om, God is supposed to be omniscient and 'exists outside of time'
    So he knew perfectly well 'before' he even invented the universe that Adam and Eve would be unable to resist temptation. He made adam and eve, he mate the tree, and He also made the snake that tempted Eve. It's a basic case of entrapment.

    It makes no sense that anything could happen that god didn't already want to happen because him being omnipotent, whatever he wants, happens. (from the lords prayer " Thy will be done"

    Everything that has happened on this planet has to have been the will of God, and could never have been any other way.
    (free will is totally in-compatable with an everlasting omnipotent, omniscient god that 'exists outside of time' Its a more determanist world view than any physical causality theory.)


    I agree with you to a point. Before the 'fall' God would have had to have complete control and knowledge of what was going to happen. After the Fall free will is introduced. Free will is incompatible with god controlling everything so god takes a step back, letting us do what we want because everything is more genuine that way.

    God can't contradict himself - so if we have free will - and we experience life as if we do - then god cannot control us. He may know what we're going to do but he's not going to forcably stop us or change our minds. He can't. God wants us to have free will.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    the dee wrote: »
    God can't contradict himself - so if we have free will - and we experience life as if we do - then god cannot control us. He may know what we're going to do but he's not going to forcably stop us or change our minds. He can't. God wants us to have free will.
    If God knows what we're going to do, then putting a tree with forbidden apples on it, which will condemn the consumer to mortality, in the Garden of Eden, knowing full well that adam and eve would eat them is surely a violation of free will, ar at least just plain nasty.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭the dee


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    If God knows what we're going to do, then putting a tree with forbidden apples on it, which will condemn the consumer to mortality, in the Garden of Eden, knowing full well that adam and eve would eat them is surely a violation of free will, ar at least just plain nasty.

    It wouldn't have been 'free will proper' before the fall. The only way it makes sense is the god wanted us to fall in order to have the opporunity to think for ourselves. Is mortality all that bad? Would you rather live forever in a state of mindless ignorance? I also don't think hell makes any sense but that's an argument for another day. I was just god's way of making us choose - thus introducing real choice into the world. If you lived forever would your choices really matter?


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    the dee wrote: »
    I agree with you to a point. Before the 'fall' God would have had to have complete control and knowledge of what was going to happen. After the Fall free will is introduced. Free will is incompatible with god controlling everything so god takes a step back, letting us do what we want because everything is more genuine that way.

    God can't contradict himself - so if we have free will - and we experience life as if we do - then god cannot control us. He may know what we're going to do but he's not going to forcably stop us or change our minds. He can't. God wants us to have free will.

    But 'thy will be done' means everything god wants happens. God must want sin or else there wouldn't be any.

    He wouldn't have to forcibly change our minds, he is supposed to have created us and as an omnipotent designer, he could have created us in any way, he chose to create people who are inclined towards temptation, he chose to create atheists and fundamentalists and con artists and people who would be fooled by con artists. He chose to create the lake of fire, he chose to create the heaven and he chose to create Lucifer knowing full well that he would eventually lead an uprising and turn into Satan.

    If god is omnipotent and omniscient, then there is no free will. There is no capacity for me to make independent decisions because of causality. Every decision we make now influences the future. If we had freedom to make any choice we wanted, the future would be uncertain, then prophecies would be impossible as would the notion that we are all a part of gods plan.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    the dee wrote: »
    It wouldn't have been 'free will proper' before the fall. The only way it makes sense is the god wanted us to fall in order to have the opporunity to think for ourselves. Is mortality all that bad? Would you rather live forever in a state of mindless ignorance? I also don't think hell makes any sense but that's an argument for another day. I was just god's way of making us choose - thus introducing real choice into the world. If you lived forever would your choices really matter?
    Aren't we supposed to be rewarded in heaven with eternal life, eternal bliss and no more pain or suffering (no sin)

    So if you wouldn't like to live in a state of mindless ignorance then why would you aspire to go to heaven?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    the dee wrote: »
    It wouldn't have been 'free will proper' before the fall. The only way it makes sense is the god wanted us to fall in order to have the opporunity to think for ourselves.
    Wait, so Adam and Eve didn't have free will???
    the dee wrote: »
    Is mortality all that bad? Would you rather live forever in a state of mindless ignorance?
    No, I'm an Atheist. Most Christians seem to relish the idea of Heaven though....


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭the dee


    I don't think Heaven sounds too great either. Although mindless ignorance wouldn't bother you because you wouldn't know any better, so what's the harm.

    Why does god have to control everything? Say he created the universe - with laws of physics and chemistry and gravity etc. All he has to do is keep it in existence. He doesn't have to move anything or change anything because it does it all itself. God created people who have free will - whatever way they got it. He doesn't create con artists and murderers and criminals - people do through their free actions.

    Even if everything is predetermined - does that make any difference to how you live your life? Do you not think about things and choose things anyway? You experience yourself as having free will - you cannot know if you don't - so what's the difference?

    God created laws of reason and laws of logic. That is why I don't believe in hell. An eternity of punishment for a finite number of sins. How does that make sense? Why would something that is clearly rational make such an irrational law?

    Free will is good. Why would we have reasoning, logical, free minds if we weren't supposed to use them?


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    the dee wrote: »

    Even if everything is predetermined - does that make any difference to how you live your life? Do you not think about things and choose things anyway? You experience yourself as having free will - you cannot know if you don't - so what's the difference?

    One of the theological objections to atheism is that if we only follow the laws of physics and cause and effect, then everything is pre determined along a fixed path, including the decisions that each one of us makes.

    It's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black considering the fact that an omniscient god means everything has already been decided too.

    In a debate between David Quinn and Richard Dawkins on the Ryan Tuberdy radio show, Quinn kept repeating "What about free will" It was his only point of argument. Dawkins should have pointed out the pre destined nature of Gods Universe, but for some reason he chose not to.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Dawkins should have pointed out the pre destined nature of Gods Universe, but for some reason he chose not to.

    Probably because Dawkins has the sense to realise that most Christians don't believe in a predestined universe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    PDN wrote: »
    Probably because Dawkins has the sense to realise that most Christians don't believe in a predestined universe.

    Whether they believe in it or not, it's the only logical outcome of a universe where an omniscient being exists 'outside of time'.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Whether they believe in it or not, it's the only logical outcome of a universe where an omniscient being exists 'outside of time'.

    No it isn't, but we've had this debate on this forum before and some seem to have a mental block on this. Foreknowledge does not logically entail predestination or limit free will.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    PDN wrote: »
    No it isn't, but we've had this debate on this forum before and some seem to have a mental block on this. Foreknowledge does not logically entail predestination or limit free will.

    +1 as they say on these forums


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,223 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    I would think that the larger question would be, by eating from the tree of knowledge, to what extent did this provide (wo)man with an enlarged source of free will?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    No it isn't, but we've had this debate on this forum before and some seem to have a mental block on this. Foreknowledge does not logically entail predestination or limit free will.

    Seriously, how many times do we have to go over this, yes it does.

    You claim that the Tree of Knowledge was a "test" for Adam and Eve.

    Ok, lets think of this logically. God knew they would fail this test. He knew this before he created Adam and Eve. In fact he knew this before he created the universe, before he created time.

    So, why run the test in the first place, since he already knows the out come?

    But then if he doesn't run the test how can there be an out come. So he has to run the test, because without running the test there is no outcome, Adam and Eve never make a choice and God can't know the outcome because there is no outcome, the test never happens. So God has to run the test because he already knows the rest of test, and he can only know the rest of the test if there actually is a result of the test, otherwise Adam and Eve are never actually tempted and there is no choice.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    I would think that the larger question would be, by eating from the tree of knowledge, to what extent did this provide (wo)man with an enlarged source of free will?

    For arguments sake, lets assume I actually believe in the literal creation story. There is no reason to assume or free will was in any way altered after eating the forbidden fruit.
    Wicknight wrote:
    yes it does.

    No it doesn't :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    PDN wrote: »
    No it isn't, but we've had this debate on this forum before and some seem to have a mental block on this. Foreknowledge does not logically entail predestination or limit free will.

    The stoics had the right idea. No matter what happens, it is a part of gods plan, so it must be good. (that includes genocide)


    If god knows what is going to happen, then everything is determined, and we have no free will. It's as simple as that.

    Foreknowledge does mean predestination when it comes to god, because he would have absolute foreknowledge, being outside of time, he knows the past the present and the future all at the same time. Any exercise of free will that god didn't already know about and plan for, along the way would scupper the causal chain.


Advertisement