I don't see how you get the idea of "Original Sin" from the Garden of Eden story (quote, Satan)

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Forgive my interjection here . . . but these questions emanate from a misperception of life. No life is created fully mature. There is a maturation process for every life. Why on earth would we expect our human lives to be any different. Why would we expect the life cycle of our species to have been created as it is eventually to mature to be?

Originally Posted by Hyker

Hello MysticPhd.
Your argument strikes me as post-hoc. You are asking why I would expect humanity to be "born" mature because no life works in this fashion. My question is rather: why design a creation where such maturation is necessary? This is particularly pointed when one considers the amount of collateral damage that has occurred and is occurring throughout this process of maturation: the violence and hatred and suffering. Why create a world where this is necessary when an almighty god could simply skip to the final product?
Thanks.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

This belies the fact that God is a living God and life IS change and maturation. Why does it have to be a creation decision? Why can it not just be an essential feature of God who is life?

Originally Posted by Hyker

Hello again MysticPhd.
I think this argument gets you into some other theological difficulties, at least within the traditional Christian framework. I am aware that you diverge significantly from this, so perhaps you will not be troubled by the additional implications.
The first is that if living is changing, then the living god must also change, but most traditional theology sees god as eternally unchanging.
The second is that we are supposedly moving forward in time until the occasion that Christ returns. After his return and all that is involved has come to pass, he is supposed to establish an eternal kingdom. This implies that there is a perfect, unchanging condition for this kingdom. If so, he could have simply started there and saved everyone (including himself) the pain of the journey.
Finally, even if change is required, why choose this particular path? You often note the savage barbarity of our ancestors. Even if we must evolve along some path, why should god have chosen a path requiring this phase of barbarism?
Thanks.

I am glad you know that my views are NOT mainstream . . . but perhaps you don't realize how much they differ at the most basic level. The confusion here seems to be because I reject the idea that God created our reality by His Will. I see our reality being as it is because that is the way God exists . . . NOT the way God Wills it. Our reality exists because God exists. Life exists because God is alive . . . NOT because God Wills it. We are created by God because that is how God reproduces His consciousness, period. Our job is to make our consciousness be as close to God's agape love as possible by loving God and each other daily and repenting when we don't.

Originally Posted by Atkutuq

I don't see how you get the idea of "Original Sin" from the Garden of Eden story

The Sin Nature entered mankind when Eve ate of the fruit as did Adam;

Something in that fruit.. changed the blood.. and every one is infected with that "nature" to rebel.

Children are born "deceivers" they know how to get their way. They do not have to be taught!

LOL!

The Sin Nature enter them Where was it before it entered them

It was something in the fruit that changed their blood

Really, then how did they choose to rebel before they ate the fruit?

Don't answer, these are rhetorical questions - your ideas fail miserably.

Without going into to much detail they were not created with a sin nature nor did they acquire one according to the story - they remained humans with a human nature.

One of the things that the final redactor/s is concerned with is proper categories and boundaries. By seeking the knowledge of good and evil they were treading upon the domain of the gods - the one thing in the story that God forbids.

God had given them dominion over the whole earth and created them to image him upon it as his vice-regents, his representatives on earth. They were charged to subdue it and rule it. This royal aspect is also a concern of the priestly writer along with the concept of obedience and holiness to God. That is how one images God properly on earth. Of course the royal theme is part of the larger ANE motifs regarding Kings as representatives of their patron gods - they were the earthy images of those gods and reflected the heavenly court and family on earth.

Anyway, the result of their disobedience by treading upon a domain set aside for the gods resulted in death. It is death that is the result not a sin nature. In the OT people, even in death, can please God and walk in righteousness and if they sin they are able to propitiate that sin through their religious practices.

People like Enoch, Noah, and Job all were pleasing to God in their flesh and in the state of death. These other concepts were later developed.

Sinning is a matter of the will not some intrinsic or ontological force or failure within humanity. How did Adam and Eve sin without a sin nature? Think about that one? In fact God even told Cain that he could master sin - rule over it.

Anyway, There is a lot more that can be said but frankly it will not fall on receiving ears - people are set in their theological ways.

Death was overcome by being righteous, by obeying and imaging God, and those that were righteous would be resurrected to LIFE. The contrast in this story is LIFE and DEATH not some sin nature bunk.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Atkutuq

I don't see how you get the idea of "Original Sin" from the Garden of Eden story

The Sin Nature entered mankind when Eve ate of the fruit as did Adam;

Something in that fruit.. changed the blood.. and every one is infected with that "nature" to rebel.

Children are born "deceivers" they know how to get their way. They do not have to be taught!

That is something I have noticed,too. How on earth do kids have such an advanced level of the manipulative arts?

How on earth do animals know instinctively to do this or that? How do we know instinctively to flinch at a sudden threat without even having time to think?

Well, we know the answer now. Evolved survival behaviour handed on encoded in DNA.

It is nothing to do with apples.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Hyker

Hello again nateswift.

I don't want you to think that I'm not hearing what you're saying, but I would disagree that 'development' is a significant overlying theme of the bible. Yes, things change over the course of the OT and NT, but that can be said of any story. What book have you ever read where everything remains static throughout?

What the OT teaches above all else is monotheism. The Israelites stray from YHWH over and over with disastrous results. The importance of the relationship between god and Israel is all-encompassing. Keeping the commandments is highly stressed. Maintaining a relationship with god (e.g. David) is another theme you see repeated.

The NT obviously focuses on the fulfillment of the prophesies, the teachings of Christ, and the promise of eternal life.

But development? Change and self-improvement? Off the top of my head I can't think of a single psalm or parable dedicated to these ideas. I can't think if a prophet that addresses the topic or a single teaching of Christ that directly preaches its importance.

Thanks.

That can be questioned. Even the OT shows a couple of shifts of development. Quite apart from the archaeological evidence that YHWH was just one of the Caananite gods (even having a consort) and not even the top one like Bel (singled out for particular polemic) in the Bible a very solid and real YHWH who can be seen from the back, but not the font, becomes a god that is not even solid, but is pure spirit.

Also, if you take the Eden story at face value, He has limitations. He cannot do everything, does not know everything and is, in fact proceeding by a process of trial and error.

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by Hyker

Hello again nateswift.
But development? Change and self-improvement? Off the top of my head I can't think of a single psalm or parable dedicated to these ideas. I can't think if a prophet that addresses the topic or a single teaching of Christ that directly preaches its importance.

Thanks.

Interesting. What is "repentance " about? Is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" not a recipe for improved relationships?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by nateswift

Interesting. What is "repentance " about? Is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" not a recipe for improved relationships?

Repentance is about getting Right with God and in pretty much the same way in OT and NT. Though OT has pretty meticulous procedures for making amends,whereas the NT requires something a bit more shapeless (though cheaper). True repentance for the backsliding.

'Do unto others' is of course a pretty universal man -made moral codewhich in the nearest thing to a humanist 'fixed' moral basis that we have.

It is found in China, India, Greece and Judea (a Pharisee saying). so of course, it had to be put into Jesus' mouth, but after having been changed from a non -interference - message to a license to evangelize on the doorstep.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by HarryManback

If you put off the Christian beliefs that were drilled into you when you were a kid, the Garden of Eden story just reads like a story of people who got in trouble for doing something that a particular god told them not to. I don't see how you can get the idea that there was some pre-existing moral code that was first violated in the Garden.

You can't. Someone had to invent the "original sin" bit later on, which is exactly what happened.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Eusebius
Hyker,
Do you believe God would have been wiser to create mankind in such a way that they would already have immortality and perfection and have nothing to contrast those blessings with and therefore have no reason to be thankful to God?

Originally Posted by Hyker

Hello again Eusebius.

I believe that I don't need to have my arms amputated, then reattached, to know that having arms is preferable. In the same way I don't see how separation from god in this earthly realm is necessary to appreciate union with him. In fact, if union with him granted us also his knowledge and wisdom, we would be well aware of the alternative without having to experience it.

Do you believe that there is no other option than god's "tough love" approach to this creation?

Thanks.

That may be so that YOU don't need to have your arms amputated but it is possible some do.

Maybe YOU don't need to be at enmity to God to enjoy reconciliation like some do.

Oh if only God had you for His adviser! He could learn so much more!

It is not a matter of whether there is another option than God's tough love approach. It is a matter of accepting what He is doing and going along with it.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by nateswift

Interesting. What is "repentance " about? Is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" not a recipe for improved relationships?

The elements of the Greek word for repent is "meta no e o" and is "after mind." It is a changing of one's mind about a matter. If you steal and then repent you change your mind about stealing.