StaticAge

In reply to the original topic, "Original Sin" is a catholic teaching, but the premise that begins the bible still begins the idea that man is born into sin. As pointed out, Jesus and Paul among others refer back to the story of Adam and Eve as the beginning. Sin is something every man inherits from birth. Well, the question is, what is it that is transferable in this way? Simply eating fruit? Simple disobedience? How is that transferable?

Note what the serpent says: "Your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad." The serpent is basically telling them that if they disobey God, they will become the gods of a new world in which they possess the authority to decide right and wrong on their own terms.

This authority is transferable, like monarchial power, every man is born in the position of a rival god to their creator, and like the offspring of a monarch, they are born without choice into this position.

For this, as God warned, mankind also dies, and the wages for sin becomes death. Only something extraordinary could ever have willfully given back to God what the first humans stole for themselves: a perfect man, with free will, who lives his life in obedience to God by choice, willfully subjected to God's rule. There is no reason for such a man to die, but his death offsets the rebellion of Adam. Jesus tastes death then for all mankind, in exchange, God grants forgiveness based on his sacrifice.

Christendom, Zorastrianism, Judaism, etc it is true, all have similar facets, which calls into question the objectivity of their claims to "truth." Interestingly though, the lie told by the serpent is the same "truth" these religions all have in common: "You will not die," that death is not really death, but life transfered to some new realm of immortality. Interestingly the ancient hebrews did not believe in an immortal soul, they believed the dead could be ressurrected, and that man, and even all animal life, does not have a soul, but is a soul. This belief is consistent with the teachings of Jesus and early christians.

John A. Broussard

This brings up an interesting point. Did god know all this was going to happen beforehand? What did he feel about it? Was he sad? Did he chuckle? Did he think, "I warned them, and they did exactly what I expected they would do." ???

Or, maybe, "Original sin is better than they deserve."

rexrex4

To consider the O.P. on the matter of the morality inherent in the A & E tale:
We could ask ourselves what would have to be the outcome of the story in order to justify the actions of the creator?
I do not say the actions of man because my whole bone of contention is that, contrary to the ‘believer’ I do say and claim that the burden of responsibility must fall on the creator not the created; this is just common sense. To say that god has a right to create pots and do as he likes with them, smash them –whatever- is true, because pots are not sentient beings. But to say that god has the right to create sentient beings whose existence is totally contingent upon god, and not themselves means that god has taken on a burden of responsibility upon himself much as I do for my cat, only gods’ is infinitely greater- I didn’t create the cat.

The thing that believers do is that they say to their selves, “god created me I ought to be grateful!� Off hand that would seem to make sense. But they forget that it was god who caused the action for his own selfish reasons ( bearing in mind that selfish is not automatically bad) but god did not create man for man-because to say he created man for mans’ sake is to say that an action can be undertaken for the sake of that which does not exist. But if the god is good and provides well for the created being(s) of course the created will be eager to be grateful. But it is wrong to think the created owes anything to the created. This is the same as me bestowing my ‘love’ upon the pretty lass who’s never spoken to me and knows not of my admiration from afar. She is under no obligation to me to ‘appreciate’ my favors once I reveal them. She may be gracious if I am not rude or a bore when she rejects me, but she owes me nothing.

Yet we humans will often find our ‘love’ turning instantly to hate and jealousy, and it is natural for us to feel that god is the same, though the believer will claim a higher gentleman’s quality for god, but read the O.T. and god is not a gentle anything.

To conclude this part of the thought, it is when I ask a favor that I assume an obligation, And this is exactly what Christians say god does, he wants the favor of my ‘freely’ loving him. But the Christian says I must say yes or suffer eternal torment. I cry and cry ,FOWL.

So what would make the story as it stands turn out in a moral fashion?
Well first, if god kept his promise and they died ‘on that day’ and that was the end of it. No hell! Hell is not mentioned in the story. As long as they understood the contract and the contract was not punitive or moralistic it would be OK. But even in human contract law, a contract is void if made under duress. Death as a simple closing of that program is legit; the threat of hell is to make a contract voided. Then if god still wanted someone to freely love him, he could make a couple more people and so on. But god would not have a right to punish them because they (the created) exercised their options. And especially would it be evil to let A & E have kids who would suffer from or for what their parents did. I assume god has a choice about this. I mean that god has the power to control the consequences of his actions as well as initiate them. If that gods’ justice requires that he send the ‘dregs’ to hell no matter what doctrine were true, then god would have no right to create anyone in the first place. First rule of being god, you never create any sentient creature if there is a real possibility of that creature ending up in eternal torment. Only a monster would take such a risk.

Second, it is claimed that god sees the big picture, we don’t. Under certain stipulations this could be a true claim. But as it is, being a simple finite human and not as knowing everything, let me say what a finite human can say with certainty: that what would make the claim moral is simply if and only if, the story has a happy ending for EVERY CREATED CREATUR!!!. Pots, planets, galaxies and universes galore he can do as he likes, but touch not with loss, sentient creatures. None of this joyous vengeance nonsense. This playing a game of gottch, that humans are so tempted to do and which they project this quality upon god is simply crude barbaric and evil.

John A. Broussard

But it might be true! In which case, my most pessimistic view of the world would be borne out. Satan created the world, and much of mankind has been mistakenly calling him God and worshipping him.

Frightening thought, though increasingly being borne out by what has and is happening in the world.

StaticAge

It may have been an issue that needed to be dealt with for paradise to exist permanently. Did God have the right to require obedience? Was he holding back something good from mankind (the authority to set their own moral boundaries)? were humans capable of self rule? In the account of Adam and Eve, these questions were raised and required a proven answer, indicated by the prophecy that God gives them concerning their seed, that in the future, history will play out who is right and who is wrong. Why is the world screwed up? Because mankind wields authority poorly. Is there hope? According to the bible, that is what Jesus preached, and that is what the early christians and the prophets of the old testament emphasized, that a day of reckoning would happen. In the future, God would judge the earth and the meek would inherit it in a perfected utopian paradise. There would be pain involved along the way, as that prophecy indicated, "he will bruise you in the head, and you will bruise him in the heel."

rexrex4

I agree 100% with what you say it would mean if christianity were true but I don't agree on the 'it is being increasingly bourne out' part. Yes, things are bad in many ways but they have always have been so, and remember you and I would be burnt alive by the believer in the past, and maybe that will come again, but I know I would rather live now than then, and I truely in an almost mystical way, I believe that it is the truth that counts, not the scorecard.

I believe that truth exists even though I don't know what it is, that the joy is that I get to participate in the search, and that no amount of lies, deception, triumpth of this church or that politician or even eroneous ideas I might come up on some or all occasions even , can be more than be a passing fad on the radar screen.

John A. Broussard

WOW!!! Maybe the 200,000 dead from the recent Indian Ocean tsunami can now rest easy knowing that they were the victims of mankind wielding "authority poorly." We can at least regale the survivors (tens of thousands maimed, hundreds of thousands homeless, a million or so bereaved) with the same explanation.

Everyone will feel better knowing that the disaster wasn't just an "Act of God" as the insurance companies claim.

Awmte

"We ask about the value of this will. Suppose we want truth. Why should we not prefer untruth? And ignorance?...
...For all the value which the true, genuine, unselfish man may be entitled to, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for everything in life has to be ascribed to appearance, the will for deception, self-interest, and desire." - Neitzsche, Beyond Good And Evil

Evoken

Neither. Non-Believers can be moral and can perform good works. We can still use reason since The Fall, we are not predestinated or totally depraved like Calvinists say. We have free will and like I said, we can still use reason. The question comes as to what constitutes a proper use of reason. In my position both faith and reason go hand in hand, neither a reason only nor a faith only position is acceptable.

I try. Well I may be expressing myself in a manner that may look like it, but I am saying the same things and have been consistent in everything I have said even if expressed in different ways.

Evoken

That The Church is authoritative and they are not when it comes to determine what Christianity is and what it is not.