According to the bible, Adam & Eve did the right thing by eating the fruit.

Overblood

I was just flicking through the well known story of Adam and Eve and the snake etc. I think the snake seems like a pretty decent character actually. Maybe Iḿ missing something though. Read on:

God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

So I´m trying to wrap my head around this. The snake offered them a fruit on a tree, of which god knew would give Adam and Eve a sense of morals: being able to know good and evil. To be as a god.

Being able to know good and evil is a good thing though isn´t it? That´s the one of the strongest cases for god; being able to know good from evil. Morality. From this story it seems like the snake gave us that power, not god.

So they eat the fruit offered to them by the serpent:

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

So they didn´t die? God lied!

Anyway,

It turns out that god is angry because they realised that they were naked. He doesn´t like clothes apparently. Did he want humans to go about their daily business totally naked? Even in the winter?

I really don´t get this story. I´m reading this from a non-believer´s point of view. Can somebody please steer me in the right direction? To me, it seems like the snake gave us morals by offering us the apple. Christians say that god gave us morals.

antiskeptic

Overblood wrote: »

Maybe Iḿ missing something though.

Indeed. And a pretty obvious something it is too.

So I´m trying to wrap my head around this. The snake offered them a fruit on a tree, of which god knew would give Adam and Eve a sense of morals: being able to know good and evil. To be as a god.

Being able to know good and evil is a good thing though isn´t it?

1) Becoming like God in the sense of knowing good from evil doesn't mean same as God, knowing the difference but never doing evil.

2) What you, God, Hitler, the dog in the street.. think is a good idea might well differ. If your idea happens to differ from Gods idea then your idea is actually a bad idea.

That´s the one of the strongest cases for god; being able to know good from evil. Morality. From this story it seems like the snake gave us that power, not god.

God provided the choice-situation. It was he that gave free will. It was he who permitted the serpent to tempt. All stems from him ultimately: whether directly or indirectly.

So they didn´t die? God lied!

Basic Christianity Pt 1

The word dead isn't limited to meaning physical death. Death can also mean separation from relationship with God.

It turns out that god is angry because they realised that they were naked. He doesn´t like clothes apparently. Did he want humans to go about their daily business totally naked? Even in the winter?

Where do you get the idea that God was angry that they were naked?

I really don´t get this story. I´m reading this from a non-believer´s point of view.

This is becoming apparent

Can somebody please steer me in the right direction? To me, it seems like the snake gave us morals by offering us the apple. Christians say that god gave us morals.

I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of difference who gave us morals. The focus should be on the role of the conscience as it pertains to your eternal destination. In that regard, your conscience is intended to produce one of two results in your life:

1) It will be stricken and seared by your wrongdoing and will finally cause you to fall to your knees and admit your hopeless guilt before God - and to ask for his forgiveness and his salvation.

OR

2) It will be suppressed by you throughout your life sufficiently so as to prevent 1) above occurring. At Judgement, your conscience will be freed to tell it's tale - how it was that you knew full well that what you were doing was wrong - but that you went ahead and did it. It's use in this second scenario will be confined to assisting you to appreciate and agree with the justice behind the decision to send you to Hell.

You'll have all eternity to rue the suppression of truth (truth-giving is what conscience is about) that has you in this predicament. Not something I'd wish on my worst earthly enemy (assuming I had one).

Húrin

That's some heavy going antiskeptic. I'll try to give a short answer.

Overblood wrote: »

Being able to know good and evil is a good thing though isn´t it? That´s the one of the strongest cases for god; being able to know good from evil. Morality. From this story it seems like the snake gave us that power, not god.

In Christian theology, God created this pair in a blissful state, in a paradise. They had no need to know about evil because they would not have done it. In a way they were like animals. When original sin occurred, God changed all of nature to the way we know it now. The knowledge of good and evil probably is a benefit in this world as it is, but it would be better if none of the above had happened.

For me this is one of the most difficult parts of Christianity to believe, for reasons which are probably obvious. If I'm off the wall in my interpretation of the effects of original sin, let me know.

Overblood

antiskeptic wrote: »

Where do you get the idea that God was angry that they were naked?

Well I get the feeling that he didn´t like the fact that they discovered nakedness:

And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

WHO TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE NAKED???!!!! By any chance did you eat the apple? Because if you know you are naked you must have eaten the evil apple.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God provided the choice-situation. It was he that gave free will. It was he who permitted the serpent to tempt. All stems from him ultimately: whether directly or indirectly.

Didn´t he essentially plan this all out so? He is omniscient after all.

And where in genesis does it say that god gave us free will?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The word dead isn't limited to meaning physical death. Death can also mean separation from relationship with God.

Where does it say this? Did Adam and Eve know about this metaphor?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of difference who gave us morals.

I thought the ¨fact¨ that god gave us morals was a very important foundation of christianity?

antiskeptic wrote: »

your conscience is intended to produce one of two results in your life:

1) It will be stricken and seared by your wrongdoing and will finally cause you to fall to your knees and admit your hopeless guilt before God - and to ask for his forgiveness and his salvation.

It makes my stomach (and brain) turn to think that I´m hopelessly guilty according to the guy who made the universe and omnisciently pre-scripted my life. He made me guilty. Lousy!

antiskeptic wrote: »

2) It will be suppressed by you throughout your life sufficiently so as to prevent 1) above occurring. At Judgement, your conscience will be freed to tell it's tale - how it was that you knew full well that what you were doing was wrong - but that you went ahead and did it. It's use in this second scenario will be confined to assisting you to appreciate and agree with the justice behind the decision to send you to Hell.

We´re gone off topic a tad don´t you think?

Tea_Bag

antiskeptic wrote: »

If your idea happens to differ from Gods idea then your idea is actually a bad idea.

im sorry, i wanted to refrain from commenting on this but...

wasnt it a bad idea for god to allow the tree to bare fruit that gave them WISDOM? and how is seeking WISDOM a bad idea in any way?
do you/have you been to school/college? is it not the same thing? seeking knowlege is pretty much what drives (most) humans. its what seperates us from other beasts and animals on earth, which is why god favours us above everything else on this rock.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God provided the choice-situation. It was he that gave free will. It was he who permitted the serpent to tempt. All stems from him ultimately: whether directly or indirectly.

but somehow

Overblood wrote: »

God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

why would he give eve/adam choice and a tempting snake and not expect eve to follow through on making one?

If you offer me tea or coffee, if i come over to your house (say, to discuss christianity further), how could you possibly be upset if i chose to have tea instead of coffee. i know its a bad metaphor but it amounts to the same thing here.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Where do you get the idea that God was angry that they were naked?

i dont, but where do you?

Overblood wrote: »

It turns out that god is angry because they realised that they were naked. He doesn´t like clothes apparently. Did he want humans to go about their daily business totally naked? Even in the winter?

antiskeptic wrote: »

2) It will be suppressed by you throughout your life sufficiently so as to prevent 1) above occurring. At Judgement, your conscience will be freed to tell it's tale - how it was that you knew full well that what you were doing was wrong - but that you went ahead and did it. It's use in this second scenario will be confined to assisting you to appreciate and agree with the justice behind the decision to send you to Hell.

You'll have all eternity to rue the suppression of truth (truth-giving is what conscience is about) that has you in this predicament. Not something I'd wish on my worst earthly enemy (assuming I had one).

ouch. i assumed god was all forgiving, cause i read it somewhere in the bible, guess i was wrong, and because of my sins ive commited im going to hell. am i wrong here or is the bible misleading me?


//DISCLAIMER: Im not attacking you personally antiskeptic, and sorry if you feel i am, i do apologise. im just questioning religion atm, and seem to be more open minded than is healthy.//

Overblood

Húrin wrote: »

In Christian theology, God created this pair in a blissful state, in a paradise. They had no need to know about evil because they would not have done it. In a way they were like animals. When original sin occurred, God changed all of nature to the way we know it now. The knowledge of good and evil probably is a benefit in this world as it is, but it would be better if none of the above had happened.

For me this is one of the most difficult parts of Christianity to believe, for reasons which are probably obvious. If I'm off the wall in my interpretation of the effects of original sin, let me know.

So we used to be like animals, then the snake seemingly gave us a conscience and a sense of morals. I really don´t see how this is a bad thing. This is supposed to be where we all went wrong isn´t it? If this story were true, I´d actually be praising the snake right now instead of god!

I really don´t get it. Is the snake a bad guy?

Hotspace

Overblood

It's very obvious to me (an ex-Christian - now atheist) that the story of Adam and Eve is a creation myth like the many other creation myths from around the world.

I have often considered the Adam and Eve story to be full of holes and that (as we see) Christians can't explain such mythical fables to make them see logically coherent within themselves and with the modern scientific world.

Let me add to the troubles for the Christian. The snake plays an important part in the story. It talks and is capable of beguiling naked women. This can only be read as a fable like the many fables around the world with various anthropomorphized animals.
There are two logical rules that Eve seems to break when giving into temptation. The act of giving into temptation assumes that you have knowledge of that which tempts you. She has no knowledge of good and evil and therefore cannot be tempted by something she cannot grasp. Also giving into temptation is a sin which she was incapable of.

But I like the hole in the fable that you point out: the serpent gave us our morals so we should thank him. This viewpoint makes me think of the view that Judas Iscariot should be worshipped because without his betrayal Jesus would not have been crucified and Jesus would not have died a sacrificial death. Instead he is often vilified by Christians.

Húrin

Overblood wrote: »

It makes my stomach (and brain) turn to think that I´m hopelessly guilty according to the guy who made the universe and omnisciently pre-scripted my life. He made me guilty. Lousy!

So you may think. That is the predicament. Christianity is there to offer a solution to the problem of this guilt.

kelly1

Let me offer my 2c if I may...

Overblood wrote: »

So I´m trying to wrap my head around this. The snake offered them a fruit on a tree, of which god knew would give Adam and Eve a sense of morals: being able to know good and evil. To be as a god.

The snake of course is a figure for Satan. Now since Satan (Lucifer) was kicked out of heaven for rebelling against God, he got jealous of the good relationship between God and Adam/Eve and decided to try and lure Adam and Eve away from God.

God created everything good. So originally A&E were seen as just before God because they were in a state of grace meaning the Holy Spirit dwelt within their souls. They had what are called the preternatural gifts of original integrity, uncorrupted will and reason and bodily immortality.

It's not that A&E had no sense of morality, it's that they knew no evil. They were entirely innocent. They had never come across anything which would lure they away from the state of grace which God intended for them.

So Satan lied to them and said they would become like God if they ate of the tree of knowledge whereas his agenda was really entice them into obedience. When the sinned they offended God causing them to loose the preternatural gifts, which God had given them, as punishment.

So instead of becoming like God, they became mere mortals devoid of divine grace and now prone to sin and suffering. Before their fall, they knew only good and now they had experience sin and the terrible destruction it brought to their lives. In this state they were anything but God-like.

As regards their dying, divine life (sanctifying grace) departed (or died within) from their souls making them unfit for heaven in the presence of God. They also lost of the gift or bodily immortality and freedom from sickness and suffering.

Overblood wrote: »

Being able to know good and evil is a good thing though isn´t it?

Adam and Eve knew no evil and this is a good thing. They were like innocent children who had no knowledge of the world's evils. But they were seduced into acting contrary to God's will.

Overblood wrote: »

It turns out that god is angry because they realised that they were naked. He doesn´t like clothes apparently. Did he want humans to go about their daily business totally naked? Even in the winter?

Again A&E were totally innocent and knew nothing about lust and indecency. They had no need of clothes because there was no need for them to enforce modesty.

CiaranC

Im no biologist, but Im pretty sure snakes cant talk

Soul Winner

Overblood wrote: »

So I´m trying to wrap my head around this. The snake offered them a fruit on a tree,

No he didn't. Read it again. He suggested that to eat of the tree was not to die which was the opposite to what God said. He didn't offer them anything. God said if you eat then you will die, and the serpent (not a crawling creature at the time of the temptation) said that if you eat then you won't die, that you will be like God knowing good and evil. And the serpent was right, they did become like God in that they now knew good and evil, even God admits this later in the chapter and bars them from the garden and from the tree of life.

So what happened was God showed them the tree, and said don't eat of it, that if you eat of it then you will die. The serpent came along and posed the question; "Did God really say that you shall not eat of the tree?" Eve: "Yes, for in the day we eat we shall surely die" Serpent: "Ye shall not surely die, ye shall become as God knowing good and evil." So they ate and disobeyed the Word of God and believe the serpent.

If you like I can go into all the typology in this chapter as well

Overblood wrote: »

Being able to know good and evil is a good thing though isn´t it?

No, they already had perfect union with God without the knowledge of good and evil. When they ate of the tree they at that moment began to die and as Wolfsbane pointed out in another post, they died spiritually too. They had been cut off from the source of life, and even though knowing good and evil were incapable of doing the good and not doing the evil. That's why there is none that doeth good, no not one.

Overblood wrote: »

That´s the one of the strongest cases for god; being able to know good from evil. Morality. From this story it seems like the snake gave us that power, not god.

So they eat the fruit offered to them by the serpent:

The serpent had nothing to offer so therefore offered nothing.

Overblood wrote: »

So they didn´t die? God lied!

He didn't actually lie. "...with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8. If you look at the genealogies from Adam onwards you will notice that none of them ever lived past 1000 years so you could say that in the day (as God sees things) that they ate they did die, so God didn't lie

Overblood wrote: »

Anyway,

It turns out that god is angry because they realized that they were naked. He doesn’t like clothes apparently. Did he want humans to go about their daily business totally naked? Even in the winter?

No because He killed the animal and used its skins to cover them both.

Overblood wrote: »

I really don´t get this story. I´m reading this from a non-believer´s point of view. Can somebody please steer me in the right direction? To me, it seems like the snake gave us morals by offering us the apple. Christians say that god gave us morals.

Where does it say that God gave us morals? He gave us laws, commandments and covenants but not morals. Those who thought that they were being good by loving their friends were cage rattled when Jesus said what so special about that? even the heathen do that, rather, love your enemies, and do good to those who persecute you." I'm doing that today, I'm enlightening the heathen who hate Christians

togster

Overblood wrote: »

I really don´t see how this is a bad thing. This is supposed to be where we all went wrong isn´t it?

Well we are hardly living in blissful balance with each other and the world we live in so yeah something went wrong.

DublinWriter

It's a creation myth, full of metaphor, so people hang whatever hat they want on it in order to make it comply with the interpretation that makes them feel the coziest in their particular belief.

If you believe in the literal truth of this story, then ask yourself whom did Cain and Abel marry?

Seoid

There are a few different ways of understanding this story but the traditional (orthodox) view is that this was the original sin - the first time anyone disobeyed God - and it changed humanity so that we all live with the consequences. Before it we lived in the garden in a state of grace - meaning that there was no sin or guilt or evil but this changed with the Fall, resulting in consequences such as: death (eventual) destruction, work (they now had to work for their food), the pain of giving birth.

Romans 6:2 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." When Jesus came, he offered life in contrast to the death that they had brought into the world by Adam and Eve.

The nakedness is a symbol of their innocence - before they have nothing to hide from themselves or anyone but after eating the fruit, they dress themselves and experience fear for the first time. They want to hide from God and cover themselves up. So they are in a fallen state to what they were before and no longer allowed to eat from the tree of life - so human lives are now finite and they no longer have such a close relationship with God.

One interpretation is that Adam and Eve are purely mythical and represent everyone of us (Adam means man and eve means life or mother) and the reality of life that means that nobody is innocent.

Another interpretation (not orthodox -I think the Mormons hold it or something similar but it's been around since the first centurys after Christ) is that it was part of God's ultimate plan - he set up the situation knowing that Adam and Eve would sin so that humanity would be redeemed and ultimately be better off than in the garden of Eden.


To become as gods and know good and evil is a mysterious phrase (to me) that might mean more than just morality. Adam and Eve wanted to know everything without God. Or did they want to short cut to knowing everything without learning it? A lot is left unsaid in the story, which is why it is quite difficult.

Soul Winner

DublinWriter wrote: »

If you believe in the literal truth of this story, then ask yourself whom did Cain and Abel marry?

It would have to be their sisters no? If we evolved from apes then who did the first homo sapien male mate with if that's the case?

Seoid

Soul Winner wrote: »

It would have to be their sisters no? If we evolved from apes then who did the first homo sapien male mate with if that's the case?

Neanderthals???

A more difficult question is how did Cain build a city??? (Gen 4:17) Who were the people?
One interpretation that I've heard is that the story relates to the spiritual awakening of humanity, not necessarily the first of our species.

Soul Winner

Seoid wrote: »

Neanderthals???

So Homo Spaien mated with Homo Neanderthalensis??

Seoid wrote: »

A more difficult question is how did Cain build a city??? (Gen 4:17) Who were the people?

See City in Stongs Concordance. It wasn't a city like Los Angeles or anything.

antiskeptic

Tea_Bag wrote: »

im sorry, i wanted to refrain from commenting on this but...

No worries

wasnt it a bad idea for god to allow the tree to bare fruit that gave them WISDOM? and how is seeking WISDOM a bad idea in any way?

The tree bore fruit leading to a knowledge of good and evil. Knowing that something is evil doesn't mean you'll refrain from engaging in that evil. Now refraining from evil would be a wise thing - given the consequences of partaking of evil - but simply knowing what evil is, isn't in itself, wisdom. Therefore wisdom wasn't the fruit born

It was good that God enabled the choice to disobey (as well as the choice to obey). That way there was choice - and consequences of that choice. Free will is a good thing. I think in any case.

why would he give eve/adam choice and a tempting snake and not expect eve to follow through on making one?

Because he told her that negative consequences would attach to a choice in a particular direction. There's no point in wondering what she understood by the word "die" anymore than there's a point in wondering what she understood by the words "On", "the", "day", "you", "eat", "of", "the"....

If you offer me tea or coffee, if i come over to your house (say, to discuss christianity further), how could you possibly be upset if i chose to have tea instead of coffee. i know its a bad metaphor but it amounts to the same thing here.

It's a bad metaphor.

God attached negative consequences to one choice. The serpent attached seemingly positive consequences to the other choice. And those consequences were delivered up on - as promised by God.

God was rightfully upset that she disobeyed him - He's God and has every right to expect to be obeyed. He gave her the right to disobey - but not without consequences attaching to that - including his wrath.

i dont, but where do you?

I don't either - I was asking Overblood where he got the notion?

ouch. i assumed god was all forgiving, cause i read it somewhere in the bible, guess i was wrong, and because of my sins ive commited im going to hell. am i wrong here or is the bible misleading me?

God will indeed forgive all sin. All the sin of those who repent of their sin. For those who chose not to repent, God will grant them their wish: they will pay the full price for their sin themselves.

It seems fair enough that God give us a choice whether or not to spend eternity with him in his love.

Overblood

So if the genesis account is just mythaphor, how did original sin come about?

kelly1

Overblood wrote: »

So if the genesis account is just mythaphor, how did original sin come about?

I think the eating of the apple is a metaphor for some other real but serious sin and because of Adam's sin, God withdrew the gifts God had created him with (uncorrupted will and reason, indwelling of the Holy Spirit).

togster

Overblood wrote: »

So if the genesis account is just mythaphor, how did original sin come about?

Good question.

PDN

Overblood wrote: »

So if the genesis account is just mythaphor, how did original sin come about?

If the first few chapters of Genesis are an extended metaphor then its message is still clear - that at some stage man chose to commit sin, and that this propensity to sin has become part of our human nature. Like just about every other characteristic this is something that we inherit from our ancestors.

Overblood

PDN wrote: »

at some stage man chose to commit sin, and that this propensity to sin has become part of our human nature. Like just about every other characteristic this is something that we inherit from our ancestors.

kelly1 wrote: »

I think the eating of the apple is a metaphor for some other real but serious sin and because of Adam's sin, God withdrew the gifts God had created him with (uncorrupted will and reason, indwelling of the Holy Spirit).

Again, if there really was no talking serpent, no fruit, or Adam & Eve, what was the original "serious" sin? How long ago was it? The homo sapien species is, according to the best scientific knowledge, roughly 200,000 years old, and at some stage man decided to "eat the fruit". What was this metaphorical fruit? Are you all basing your belief in man's original sin on a single metaphorical passage?

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

1) Becoming like God in the sense of knowing good from evil doesn't mean same as God, knowing the difference but never doing evil.

I am sorry but when I read this one thought struck me. Christians believe in the sin of omission, that a failure to act to prevent a wrong will make you culpable for that wrong. I believe it was St. Thomas Aquinas, drawing on the works of St. Albus Magnus, who posited this position and it has been an integral part of Christian teaching ever since.

If this is so, and we freely accept that God does not interfere with the affairs of men although he is omnipotent and has the power to do so, then are we not implicitly stating that God, whenever a sin is committed or a tragedy occurs is, by his willful neglect to act, guilty of a sin - that being a sin of omission?

kelly1

Overblood wrote: »

Again, if there really was no talking serpent, no fruit, or Adam & Eve, what was the original "serious" sin? How long ago was it? The homo sapien species is, according to the best scientific knowledge, roughly 200,000 years old, and at some stage man decided to "eat the fruit". What was this metaphorical fruit? Are you all basing your belief in man's original sin on a single metaphorical passage?

Adam & Eve were the first humans endowed with spiritual souls, regardless of whether evolution of humans is true.
The eating of the apple symbolizes the first sin.

People need to remember that the bible is the story of salvation history. It's not meant to be a scientific or absolutely accurate history book.

The A&E story conveys that fact that our first parents sinned against God and fell from grace.

PDN

Overblood wrote: »

Are you all basing your belief in man's original sin on a single metaphorical passage?

No. There are plenty of other biblical passages that teach original sin. (I am referring to original sin as being our inheritance of a propensity towards sin - not to inheriting the guilt for another's actions) Read the Book of Romans to see how the doctrine of original sin is taught and developed.

bnt

Well, I suspect that if the apple had not been eaten (or whatever is behind the metaphor), the Bible would have been a real short book, if it had been written at all. Just a couple living in Eden in perpetuity, with no knowledge of language, stories, writing, or printing. Never mind the Internet we use to ask these questions ... :cool:

Overblood

No. There are plenty of other biblical passages that teach original sin.

Did original sin first appear in Genesis or Romans?

kelly1 wrote: »

Adam & Eve were the first humans endowed with spiritual souls, regardless of whether evolution of humans is true. The eating of the apple symbolizes the first sin.

So at some stage in our evolutionary history, god decided to plant a soul in a male and female specimen. Before that, humans were soul-less, vapid, without conscience.

What exactly did a soul give us the power to do anyways?

Anyway, the male and female live in the garden of eden...naked. Even during the winter. They live their life knowing nothing of sin, only doing good.

Then the story gets a bit fuzzy: all of a sudden, in their innocence, they commit a sin. Nobody really knows what the sin was, or what exactly happened, since the only account of the events are a couple of metaphorical passages.

Nevertheless, god isn't happy and he doesn't give second chances, so he strikes Adam and Eve with terrible curses. Adam and Eve become subject to disease, pain, deterioration with old age and bodily death. To top it off, Eve shall from then on suffer during childbirth.

The most amazing part is, god then casts these curses on all of humanity, for all of eternity. The end.

This how the non-metaphorical story plays out in my head. Would somebody else be willing to give a better, non-metaphorical, detailed account of what happened? I'm not looking for scientifically accurate stuf here, I'd just like to know exactly what the root causes are of me being born into sin and corruption.

Fanny Cradock

Deleted User wrote: »

I am sorry but when I read this one thought struck me. Christians believe in the sin of omission, that a failure to act to prevent a wrong will make you culpable for that wrong. I believe it was St. Thomas Aquinas, drawing on the works of St. Albus Magnus, who posited this position and it has been an integral part of Christian teaching ever since.

If this is so, and we freely accept that God does not interfere with the affairs of men although he is omnipotent and has the power to do so, then are we not implicitly stating that God, whenever a sin is committed or a tragedy occurs is, by his willful neglect to act, guilty of a sin - that being a sin of omission?

Well, firstly one would have to agree that the sin of ommission exists. Secondly, it rather ignores the bvelief that God has done something about ending sin, suffering and death through Jesus.

Fanny Cradock

bnt wrote: »

Well, I suspect that if the apple had not been eaten (or whatever is behind the metaphor), the Bible would have been a real short book, if it had been written at all. Just a couple living in Eden in perpetuity, with no knowledge of language, stories, writing, or printing. Never mind the Internet we use to ask these questions ... :cool:

Not sure I would agree with you. I'm of the opinion that he bible teaches that Eden was never intended to exist in perpetuity; a new heaven and a new earth was always on the cards and remains so.

Fanny Cradock

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, firstly one would have to agree that the sin of ommission exists. Secondly, it rather ignores the bvelief that God has done something about ending sin, suffering and death through Jesus.

St. Augustine, St. Albus Magnus and St. Thomas Aquinas all contended (as well as a number of Popes through Papal Bulls and Encyclicals) that there is a sin of omission and it has been church teaching since the latter 13th century.

Jesus' sacrifice came, in Biblical terms, a few thousand years after the act which I have contended would be a sin on the part of God. Was God then stained with this sin for all that time?