Old Man

I percieve "law" to represent a source of authority.


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


The law of sin in the flesh, is the flesh subjected to the dictates of sin.

It seems to be synonymous with the "desire to sin". Obviously, one can desire to sin, without actually sinning, because:

1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Sin itself is the objective breaking of the commandment of the law, but the law of sin, represents the authority of sin, under which the flesh subsists.

Just became the flesh is under the law of sin, does not infer that one does sin. As Paul says:

Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

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.

wade-w

Old Man:

Are you planning to answer my question?

Old Man

It really depends on what you consider to be "knowledge of good and evil". Do you take it to be "first hand experience of sin", or simply knowing that something is inherently wrong, without ever having done it (like commiting adultery)?

I prefer to take it in the former sense. Adam and Eve had no knowledge of what it was to "have sinned". They did however, know the consequence of sin, because they were told they would "surely die" and it must be infered that they understood the meaning of death.

Thus they could be held accountable for their actions because they knew the theoretical consequences, even though they had no experience of what it was to have sinned.

Vorkosigan

:notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:

Old Man

And you are a moderator too!

Some moderator.

Actually, my wife is not a lesbian and I have never been divorced.

So what that does that make you?

A false prophet.

(I prefer to stick with the true ones.)

Jackalope

[edited to add the beginning section]
Olorun (Oldumare, the most high) ruled the heavens, where all the orisha lived. Olokun, his sister, ruled the sea below. No one lived in Olokun's domain, an empty space of water and marshes. The kingdoms were seperate, and the orisha ignored the sea below. All except Obatala, the King of the White Cloth. He desired to go down and fill Olokun's empty kingdom. So Obatala went to Olorun and asked how this could come to be. Olorun sent him to Orunmila, the diviner, to find out how this could be done.

Orunmila told Obatala how he could descend from heaven. First he needed a golden chain with a hook on the end. So Obatala went to all the orisha and took their jewelry to Ogun for him to make into a chain. When the chain was made, it was lowered down from the clouds until it almost touched the water.

Obatala carried a sack that held the things Orunmila had told him to bring. First, he drew out a snail shell filled with sand. He dumped the sand out onto the water, which made the first land. Then he pulled out a white hen, which scratched at the sand and scattered it around, spreading the land further and further. When there was enough land, Obatala jumped down. Then he planted the palm nut he had in the sack. The last item in the sack was a black cat, to keep him company.

Obatala planted some food crops, built himself a house, and made wine from the palm nuts he harvested. Then he went to work.

Obatala went to work forming people out of clay. As he worked he got thirsty, so he began to drink the palm wine he'd pressed. He kept drinking as he worked, and as the day went on, he got drunker and drunker. Some of the people he molded were malformed, some missing limbs, and some twisted. Since Obatala was drunk, he didn't notice that his work was marred. So he blew life into the figures, then passed out.

When Obatala awoke the next morning, he saw what he had done and regretted it. Then he vowed to never drink again. This is why children of Obatala must avoid alcohol. It's also why Obatala is the protector of the crippled, deformed and albinos.

This is the story as I've been told it by numerous practitioners of Regalia de Ocha (sometimes called Santeria), as well as what I've read in several collections of Yoruba stories. I'll try and dig up one of the books to doublecheck the details.


I've grown to distrust collections that try and hit every world religion. Often details are conflated with similar legends from nearby areas. And the version you have there may actually be told in some areas of Nigeria. The legends vary from place to place (there are at least two different versions of how Shango became an orisha, for example). Sometimes it depends on what city your storyteller is from. And some of the stories told in the african diaspora are no longer told in Nigeria, because all the inhabitants from that particular city were packed off as slaves.

For the spider web, I think you want the ashanti stories. Anansi, the spider-man figures in them. I'm busy doing a web search to find the details, but you may have better luck than I at that.

Jackalope

Okay, I found one of my books on yoruba legends. Tales of Yoruba Gods and Heros, by Harold Courlander. ISBN 0-942272-40-4
This is a nice starting place, because he includes some of the praise songs that have migrated to Haiti, Cuba, and Brazil.

I found one more mistake in my story up there. Oldumare breathes life into the clay figures. Obatala does not have the power to do so. He's an orisha, but not the Most High.

The Gnostic

One major question for you. One which I am sure you have answered before, but I have yet to find it. Even with using search.

You have yet to actually explain, within your paradigm, why it is appropriate that man is blamed for Adam & Eve's alleged mistake.

On another topic within this thread. I have been through a nasty divorce. I am currently still involved in it as a matter of fact. And although I agree there are some statistics to both sides that can support the generalizations made so far, I have one bone to pick with you. What makes you think a man "grants" his wife a divorce is she cheats on him, or what have you. A court decides whether or not to dissolve a marriage. Not the other person. I would like to know where you got the impression that a man can "grant" or "deny" his wife a divorce. The man may not want it, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Vinnie

I am not sure iff Old Man actually believes this. I could have missed something but not all original sin proponents agree with the "imputation of guilt" from Adam.

I said this in my article:

"I am not arguing against non-imputational forms of original sin which are really just cloaked understandings of the universal nature of sin and the empirical fact that sin has social aspects."

That is why I am aked OM for a definition of law of sin which he just provided. I think these are "cloaked understandings of the universal nature of sin and the empirical fact that sin has social aspects". The Biblical authors were working from current observations about the world and went backwards to explain them. This means they have nothing new to tell us about human origins.

many Christians do hold to the imputation of guilt. obviously this is the most ridiculous form of original sin. As I said at the beginning of my article:

"It is unethical to hold someone responsible for the sins of another person. Suppose there is a single father who has a son and a daughter. One night he has to leave them home alone. Before leaving them he tells them that they can eat whatever they want in the fridge except for any of the fruit as that is reserved for the making of a fruit basket to give to someone as a present the following morning. When the man leaves the house the daughter, overcome with temptation, eats a piece of fruit and she gives some to her brother who is there with her and they eat it and disobey their father together.

The father comes home later that night and is greatly disappointed that they disobeyed him. Because of their disobedience he grounds both of them. They are punished accordingly.

On what grounds could this man later punish and/or hold responsible and/or find guilty his grandchildren and even his great grandchildren on account of the willful disobedience of his son and daughter that night? There aren't any valid grounds for this sort of behavior. It would be highly unethical and quite insane of this man to punish or hold his children's descendents responsible on account of his children's sin.

Such an action would defy moral sensibilities as guilt hardly seems like a transferable commodity. As Abraham asked in Genesis 18 "Shall not the Lord and Judge of all the earth do right?" "

Fortunately, the more knowledgeable Christians recognize the problems that the "imputation of guilt" carries with it and deny this doctrine. It is precisely because of all these problems that original sin is formulated in such different ways.

Vinnie

The Gnostic

Very well said Vinnie. And a better answer than I expected from OM. However, I did read OM's post, and felt that he was justifying his reasoning for not believing in that particular piece os Xianity. I have noticed that he is just as guilty as others for choosing which parts of the Bible to take literally, and which to take figuratively. My initial question for him is more of a leader question into a series of others.

But since you answered so eloquently, I will go on ahead and lay it out. Many claim that we have guilt conferred upon us, etc. Others claim other reasons. But most xians will claim that we do have sin, and it requires something to atone (insert your paticular faith's adjective here) for it, etc. My basic question to xians usually is, why set us up that way in the first place? We could have been "taught" freedom of choice without the need for "sin".

Essentially what I see is this: I (god) will make you do bad things. Then I will give you a way to atone for it, and show you how good I am, because I gave you a way to fix yoour evil ways. Pretty much a deflection tactic from the fact the he caused us to be that way in the first place (if you believe the xian way). And no I don't care that man made a choice to be that way. Fact is, if you believe the xian way, god set it up that way. Period. He would have had to make it all possible in the first place. Therefore it is his doing. Pretty simply really.

I still await a concise, topical answer from OM. It should be simple to answer.