Spirituality
08 Dec 08
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by Rajk999Since no one has come forth with an answer to your query, yes, Jesus did visit Samaria as recorded in Luke 9:52, and the well-known story of the woman at the well took place in Sychar, Samaria. Because of her witness, many came to believe in him. She actually brought a crowd of people back to the well and Jesus taught them. Gospel of John Chapter 4.
Did the Samaritans in the time of Christ know anything of Christ?
However one defines “sin”, if the concept of “original sin” entails some inherent propensity/inclination to sin (e.g., a “sin nature” ), then—
(1) Adam and Eve already possessed such propensity to sin; or
(2) Eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and bad was not itself a sin.
In the first case, the human propensity to sin did not originate as a result of eating the fruit. It was already there.
In the second case, neither eating the fruit nor any other prior act could be called the original (first) sin.
Therefore, if one wants to hold that the human propensity to sin came into being as a result of the eating of the fruit, then one has to say that Adam and Eve had no such propensity prior to having already partaken of that fruit. Without some propensity to sin, how does one [/i]sin[/i]? Without some propensity to disobey, how does one disobey?
[Further, if one does not have any knowledge of good and bad (Hebrew: tov and ra)—as the first humans would not have had, according to the story, prior to eating of that tree—then how can they be assigned any moral guilt?]
Any reading of this story (whether literal, or allegorical, or whatever) that makes any sense cannot claim both that Adam and Eve sinned and that humans first acquired the propensity for sin (“original sin” ) as a result of Adam and Eve eating from that tree.
If I am missing something in the logic here, I’ll be happy to reconsider...
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by vistesdI'd love to hear a coherent objection to your logic.
However one defines “sin”, if the concept of “original sin” entails some inherent propensity/inclination to sin (e.g., a “sin nature” ), then—
(1) Adam and Eve already possessed such propensity to sin; or
(2) Eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and bad was not itself a sin.
In the first case, the human propensity to sin di ...[text shortened]... from that tree.
If I am missing something in the logic here, I’ll be happy to reconsider...
11 Dec 08
6 edits
Originally posted by vistesdthat 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 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 the logic above is clearly flawed on this basis. Adam was warned, that ' in the day you eat from the tree of knowledge he would positively die - Genesis 1:29 and 2:17
However one defines “sin”, if the concept of “original sin” entails some inherent propensity/inclination to sin (e.g., a “sin nature” ), then—
(1) Adam and Eve already possessed such propensity to sin; or
(2) Eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and bad was not itself a sin.
In the first case, the human propensity to sin di ...[text shortened]... from that tree.
If I am missing something in the logic here, I’ll be happy to reconsider...
This one restriction caused no hardship, Adam and Eve could eat from all the other trees in the garden. Genesis 2:16, moreover, the prohibition attributed nothing improper to the couple, nor did it rob them of dignity.
The tree of knowledge was a literal tree. However, and it must be emphasized, that it represented Gods right as ruler to decide what is good and bad for his human creation. To eat from the tree, therefore, was not just an act of theft taking that which belonged to God but also a presumptuous grasp at moral independence, or self-determination! the fact of which is clearly established by their being created free moral agents!
Note that after lyingly telling eve that if she and her husband ate the fruit, they positively would not die, satan asserted: 'for God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad, Genesis 3:4,5. however when they ate the fruit, however, Adam and Eve did not receive godlike enlightenment on good and bad
By asserting their independence, adam and eve irreparably damaged their relationship with God and inflicted sins imprint upon their organism, right to its genetic foundations! true, they lived for hundreds of years, but they began to die 'in the day' of their sin, as a branch severed from a tree would. Moreover, for the first time, they sensed an internal disharmony. They felt naked and tried to hide from God. Genesis 3:7, 8 They also felt guilt, insecurity, and shame. Their sin produced an upheaval within them, their consciences accusing them of wrongdoing.
To be true to himself and to his holy standards, God justly sentenced adam and eve to death and expelled them from the garden of Eden. (Genesis 3:19, 23, 24) Thus, Paradise, happiness, and everlasting life were lost, while sin, suffering, and death resulted. However, and please note, as this contains the entire justification for christs coming! immediately after sentencing the couple, God promised to undo all the harm resulting from their sin without compromising his own righteous standards. perfect justice and love at the same time!
God purposed to make it possible for the offspring of adam and eve to be freed from sins deadly grip. He accomplished this through the Christ, through him, God will eliminate sin and all its effects and will make the earth into a global paradise, just as he purposed in the beginning!
hopefully this is coherent and logical enough for your tastes, but by my standards it seems a bit preachy which was not really my intention, hopefully you can live and let live!
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Dec 08
Originally posted by vistesdWhy? I can sin without having a propensity to sin. To argue otherwise would be analogous to arguing that one can only be drunk if one is an alcoholic.
Any reading of this story (whether literal, or allegorical, or whatever) that makes any sense [b]cannot claim both that Adam and Eve sinned and that humans first acquired the propensity for sin (“original sin” ) as a result of Adam and Eve eating from that tree. [/b]
12 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KAlcoholism is a disease, not just a propensity.* By the logic of your example, the inversion would hold: all non-drinkers would also be non-alcoholics—which would exclude alcoholics who do not drink.
Why? I can sin without having a propensity to sin. To argue otherwise would be analogous to arguing that one can only be drunk if one is an alcoholic.
To get away from just negative examples: In order to actually love, I must have both the capacity and the propensity/inclination to do so.
* Addiction may entail propensity; propensity does not entail addiction.
12 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI agree with Conrau.
However one defines “sin”, if the concept of “original sin” entails some inherent propensity/inclination to sin (e.g., a “sin nature” ), then—
(1) Adam and Eve already possessed such propensity to sin; or
(2) Eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and bad was not itself a sin.
In the first case, the human propensity to sin di ...[text shortened]... from that tree.
If I am missing something in the logic here, I’ll be happy to reconsider...
Actions have consequences, whether we have a propensity for those actions or not.
__________
If we posit that God's will is always the highest good, then it would follow that disobeying God would carry its own consequences. How does that chain of consequences ever return to the highest good? It makes sense to me that a departure from the highest good (i.e., God's will) would require a Solution. In this case, a Solutgion only God can provide.
12 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt seems that you have released the dilemma by essentially choosing (1). Which means that you are opposed to those who say that the propensity for sin (or “sin nature” ) was the result of eating the tree. And that has seemed to me the conventional view of “original sin”: that the inherent human propensity for sin is inherited as a result of the eating. (Of course, your soteriology is also at odds with what I would call the conventional view—and logically so, I think.)
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]
You have—I think correctly—distinguished between the propensity to sin and actual sin. Human beings have lots of propensities, to both love and hate for example, and choose which propensities to act upon.
The only other point I want to make in reply to your post is that “free moral agency” and propensities/inclinations are not the same thing. As a free moral agent I could, for example, choose to torture small animals; but I simply have no inherent propensity/inclination toward that kind of behavior, to the very idea of which I react with basic disgust (and did even as a very young child). Thus, that has never been an option in my conscious choice-set. [Which is not to say that all my propensities are positive.]
In short, we can be free moral agents without each of us having the same propensities, let alone all of us having a propensity toward anything and everything imaginable.
Which simply means that Adam and Eve’s ability to actually disobey is predicated on both (a) the propensity to do so and (b) free moral agency (the capacity to choose).
[I guess there is an alternative possibility if one is a strict determinist (which I am not), in which case free moral agency does not come into play.]
______________________________________
I didn’t think your were being “preachy”, just expanding the point along your own theological lines. No problem.
12 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasI was in no way that actions (even accidental ones, or one’s committed as non-reflective reactions—such as an “instinctual” survival response) do not carry consequences.
I agree with Conrau.
Actions have consequences, whether we have a propensity for those actions or not.
__________
If we posit that God's will is always the highest good, then it would follow that disobeying God would carry its own consequences. How does that chain of consequences ever return to the highest good? It makes sense to me that a d ...[text shortened]... (i.e., God's will) would require a Solution. In this case, a Solutgion only God can provide.
Let me use the example of homosexuality that you raised in the other thread. Let’s assume that some people are born with a propensity for (a genetic disposition toward) homosexuality. (I happen to think that is true.) Some people argue that such a propensity is not itself sinful, but that acting upon it is. (Not my view, by the way.)
[Further, such an inherent propensity may be stronger in some than in others (probably could be plotted as a statistical distribution). That’s just an aside.]
I recall a discussion with someone once, who said: “‘Those people’ (meaning homosexuals) choose to be the way they are, and they can suffer the consequences.” I asked: “When did you choose to be heterosexual, and how did you go about making that decision as opposed to the alternative?” That, for some reason, ended the discussion...
The point being: if you do not have a propensity for some action, it is simply not going to be part of your perceived choice-set. It is not even something that you, under normal circumstances (e.g., excluding force), have to decide against.
_________________________________________
EDIT: Despite Conrau's and your objections, I still do not see any way out of the dilemma except by choosing (1) or (2). Robbie, as I understand him, chooses (1)--and that does effectively release the dilemma. I wonder if anyone will choose (2), and argue for that choice...
