Vinnie

Hot off the press:

http://www.acfaith.com/originalsin.html

Is it me or is the myth of human origins told by the Carabaulo people of Timor funny as hell? The ancient anscestors climbed out of a...

Vinnie

Old Man

You say:
Paul also refers to the "law of sin":

Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.


However, the "law of sin" must be separate from its performance, because law subsists independently of its subject.

You said:

I agree. The real issue with original sin, is whether the law of sin arises by transmission, or by location (i.e being in the world).

Adam is represented as our biological father. He is also represented as the means through which sin entered the world.

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men,


For "sin", read the law of sin. The "law of sin" is spiritual and not atomic. Because we are biologically descended from Adam, there is no transmission of sin, or the law of sin, through the flesh at birth. Rather, it is the law of sin which is present in the world, and all humans are subjected to it, simply by reason of being born.

There is a difference between being "subjected" to the law of sin, and being "subject" to it. All humans, including Christ, were "subjected" to the law of sin, but only Christ remains not subject to it.


You said:
That is a major point. It was frivolous. A simple test. But even a test so simple was beyond the ability of man to pass. The rebellion against God started through Eve's inability to think logically - desire took precedence over reason, but she was not willing to recognize it. Adam simply followed his wife. knowing that it was wrong. A bit like men giving feminism free reign. They know its wrong, but permit it nevertheless.

JCS

1) Eve can't think logically because of desire
2) She is unable or unwilling to recognize this

vs

1) Adam dumbly follows along even though he knows it is wrong.
2) Men allow women to lead their own lifes even though they know it is wrong.

Women aren't logical because of desire. Men just like to follow along even though they know it is wrong. Your statement makes women look like willing participants in wrongful behavior while men are just innocent dolts just tagging along even though they know it is wrong.

Do you really believe this BS. I guess this could be used to explain the virgin birth. Everyone knew it couldn't be true, but the the poor virgin Marry desired it and Joseph dumbly followed along with it, even though he knew it was wrong.

Old Man

I never said that. Everyone has desires. Not everyone gives precedence to desire over reason. Eve did.

In many cases, this is quite correct. The divorce courts are full of women trying to get divorces simply because they have commited adultery (or converted to lesbianism) and want to be rid of their husbands. Desire takes precedence over reason.

Men know they should not grant divorces to women under such circumstances. But they do. Its called "SIN".

I not only believe it, but I see the consequences of it with my own eyes every day. A cursory glance at any statistics, will show how women abuse their desires. At least 70% of all divorces are originated by women. The reason is not hard to see

Assets and legal costs Average/man Total money/year

Transferred to women at marriage 9913£ 1748M£
Transferred to women at divorce 18804£ 3384M£

From http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/stats.htm

Women make 2x as much money on divorce as on getting married. Its the same precedence of desire over reason that causes women to get divorced. But why is it unreasonable? For the same reason as it was unreasonable for Eve to eat the fruit. And that reason is one that everyone must work out for themselves.

:banghead:

kctan

Proof please.

Vinnie

Define sin. Then define law of sin. If the law of sin a "thing"?

If Paul referred to something that is incoherent we must call a spade a spade and not try to force coherence onto nonsense.

I do not see Paul as teaching original sin there. Even if he is, I have to say he was incorrect given the 5 reasons I articulated. I would go to Romans 1:18-3:21 for Paul's thoughts on sin.

It is also no secret to me that Paul amongst others, somehow believed election was consistent with free will. He is not the only ancient person to do so. To truly understand Paul, we are not going to do it by reading Romans in light of our modern world-view. Paul and I do not have the same worldview. We do not look at spiritual realities in exactly the same way. I also doubt that Paul defined sin as strictly as I do. My job, then, as an exegete is to try to understand Paul in his world and see if any of that carries over and applies to my own. This is then what I get out of the new testament language on this:

Borg: "For Paul . . . and the New Testament, we are in bondage to "the powers." "The powers" are cultural, spiritual, and psychological powers operating both within us and outside us." That is it. I don't get original sin that is for sure.

My definition of sin may be simpistic and naive to some, but I'm sticking with it until I see a better one. As ever, I am open to a better working definition of moral-ethical evil or sin. i am not going to debate the issue until the relevant terms are defined though. I will not discuss the issue with someone who is going to use "sin" and "evil" in a different and undefined sense from my own.

I also would point out that making sin a thing or being would hurt the traditional Christian picture. The theodice problem would be insolvable wouldn't it? If sin exists as a "thing" or "being" then I take it God created it. Many might say the point of Genesis 3 is that we created it. I would challenge that in two ways: 1) Do we have such creative power to create something ex nihilo like "sin" or evil"? Can't we only transform existing things and not radically introduce completely new ones? 2) Early Gen is myth. There was suffering and death for billions of years on this planet. Can we salvage a "spiritual death" for humans from Genesis?

This is where I differ from other Christians. When I interpret Genesis 3 I do so with the assumption that Adam and Eve cannot be literal people. This is because of the advances of modern science which I am not willing to submit to the authority of a creation myth. My hermenutic incorporates evolution. I think any other hermeneutic is flawed from the start if it denies evolution.

There are no ifs, ands or buts from me on this one. Modern science has over-ruled the "facts" of Genesis.

Vinnie

Old Man

One of the problems is that you don't really define what you mean by "original sin".

Wesley simply took it to mean that all were sinners from birth, because of Adam.

Calvinists say that there is transmission of original sin from Adam.

Since it can mean diametrically different things to different people, simply saying you don't get it is not particularly informative.

Adam and Eve had to exist. There must have been a first man (and woman) whom God attributed as "being in his image", even if creation of modern man was through evolution.

There had to be a first moral man (& woman) who sinned, who felt shame, who knew they did wrong, and who made clothes.

It all had to happen. The bible says it did, and not much else.

To regard the truths taught by early Genesis as "mythical" is unjustified. But the bible never claims to be a substitute science text book.

Kosh

Old Man, we're really sorry that your wife had a lesbian affair, and then cleaned you out in divorce court. Your anger is clear for everyone to see. But please stop making broad sweeping generalizations without some evidence to back it up. Makes you look like a fool.

Back to my Ossuary show...

Clutch

Extreme charity, that.

In fact it's a lovely case study in the value of religion, as a principle for universalizing the peculiar frustrations and obsessions of each particular cultist. That's why a successful religion has enough contradictions to allow everyone seize upon whatever verse reifies his or her pre-existing obsession. With Old Man, it's misogyny: scripture provides lots of vicious material to buoy up a hatred of women -- while of course providing lots of countervailing material to stroke the milder intuitions of some of his fellow Christians.

wade-w

This is what I've never been able to understand about the whole story. The transgression was eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This implies that before eating of the fruit, neither Eve nor Adam understood the difference between good and evil. How could any just being hold them accountable for their actions in those circumstances? How could Adam, as you claim, know it was wrong before he ate the fruit?

If you accept this story as factual, there is only one logical conclusion. Your god set them up to fail.