Original Sin Contradiction

[Tycoon]

The entire Christian religion is based around the idea of sin, repayment, and forgiveness. A lot of this hinges on the original sin, which gives an explanation as to why we have free will and are sinners.

But the original sin is a contradiction in itself. The bible states that once Adam and Eve ate from the tree, "then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loinclothes for themselves." Another account says, "see, now the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil".

If man did not know what good and evil were before committing the sin, then man could not possibly be at fault. The accounts could even be interpreted as suggesting that we did not have free will in the Garden of Eden, which would mean that the sin was God's.

And that's just in the first chapter of the bible!

[Devil's Advocate]

No, the tree of good and evil didn't mean good and evil. It meant knowledge of everything.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Devil's Advocate No, the tree of good and evil didn't mean good and evil. It meant knowledge of everything.

If I'm not mistaken, it was " the tree of knowledge of good and evil", not the tree of all knowledge, since it's obvious there is a lot we don't know.

[Night]

Dream on white boy
Dream on black girl
To wake up to a brand new day
And find your dreams have washed away

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Quote by: Tycoon The entire Christian religion is based around the idea of sin, repayment, and forgiveness. A lot of this hinges on the original sin, which gives an explanation as to why we have free will and are sinners. But the original sin is a contradiction in itself. The bible states that once Adam and Eve ate from the tree, "then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loinclothes for themselves." Another account says, "see, now the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil". If man did not know what good and evil were before committing the sin, then man could not possibly be at fault. The accounts could even be interpreted as suggesting that we did not have free will in the Garden of Eden, which would mean that the sin was God's. And that's just in the first chapter of the bible!

1. First of all, you are making the mistake of assuming that knowledge is a prerequisite for {fault.} One does not have to know to be at {fault.} For example, the immigrant who causes a car accident because he or she was not aware that they were supposed to stop at the red light is still at fault for causing the accident. Their lack of knowledge regarding the driving law does not erase the fact that they ran a red light and crashed into someone else.

So, {ignorance} does not destroy {fault.}

2. It is impossible not to know any {good} or {evil.} Your very survival is predicated on your knowledge of {good} and evil.

3. How do the accounts suggest that they did not have free will? They were given two choices: eat the fruit or don’t eat the fruit. Was it not their will to eat the fruit? Who made them eat the fruit?

Where is the contradiction?

[ItsDarts]

who made/ created the "talking serpant"? Who lied and said "surely you will die" if you eat the fruit? Who said you won't die? Now explain why A&E would be at fault? Who didn't die when they ate the fruit? God didn't disclose all the information they needed to make a sound decision.

[Jinei]

Quote by: Mr. Mxyzptlk 2. It is impossible not to know any {good} or {evil.} Your very survival is predicated on your knowledge of {good} and evil.

But did A&E know any good and evil before they ate the fruit?

And to be perfectly honest, I would have eaten it too. I would not have remained blissfully ignorant for very long. If God created A&E with such the curiosity and vie for knowledge and art that humans are known for, surely they were set up to eat the fruit from the start.

[Walrus]

Quote by: ItsDarts who made/ created the "talking serpant"? Who lied and said "surely you will die" if you eat the fruit? Who said you won't die? Now explain why A&E would be at fault? Who didn't die when they ate the fruit? God didn't disclose all the information they needed to make a sound decision.

I think the answer to this is that they did die, in that because of their disobedience they were banished from the Garden of Eden and therefore denied the immortality that they could have obtained from eating of the tree of life.

[Zhavric]

I would argue that Christianity has an unhealthy obsession with sin for a specific reason: it's the magical disease that everyone has and Christianity is selling the "miracle cure" that you don't really need.

Most Christians really haven't thought things through carefully. "We need a literal messiah to atone for a figurative happening... wait, what?"

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Walrus I think the answer to this is that they did die, in that because of their disobedience they were banished from the Garden of Eden and therefore denied the immortality that they could have obtained from eating of the tree of life.

Agreed, that in the story they died, but not for many years later. God must of had a reason to be so obtuse with his "or surely you'll die" rhetoric? What about the rest of it? Why make a serpant that can talk, then make that serpant crawl on its belly for eternity for talking in the first place? Why not explain to them that knowledge of good and evil would result in a future death? Why would knowledge lead to death anyway? Did they die because they gained knowledge or did they die because they were thrown out of the garden? Did the garden have special porperties that kept things alive for ever? If so, where is the rest of the garden?

The whole story reaks of inconsistancies, enough so that even the Catholic Church now considers it allegorical. What I don't understand is, if the Church thinks its only a story, then original sin never occured and we don't need saving because of original sin. We evolved with good and evil and that is no ones fault. Unless of course christians wish to accept that evolution is gods way of making us, then of course its gods fault that we even have knowledge of good and evil.

[Devil's Advocate]

Quote by: ItsDarts If I'm not mistaken, it was " the tree of knowledge of good and evil", not the tree of all knowledge, since it's obvious there is a lot we don't know.

I was just told that yesterday. It meant more than just good and evil.

[Rog]

Quote by: Tycoon If man did not know what good and evil were before committing the sin, then man could not possibly be at fault. The accounts could even be interpreted as suggesting that we did not have free will in the Garden of Eden, which would mean that the sin was God's. And that's just in the first chapter of the bible!

The sin was disobedience. God told them not to eat, but they did, that suggest to me A&E knew some level of right and wrong, they ate the fruit of knowledge before they eat the fruit of eternal life, thats why they were kicked out of Eden.

[Tycoon]

1. First of all, you are making the mistake of assuming that knowledge is a prerequisite for {fault.} One does not have to know to be at {fault.} For example, the immigrant who causes a car accident because he or she was not aware that they were supposed to stop at the red light is still at fault for causing the accident. Their lack of knowledge regarding the driving law does not erase the fact that they ran a red light and crashed into someone else. So, {ignorance} does not destroy {fault.} 2. It is impossible not to know any {good} or {evil.} Your very survival is predicated on your knowledge of {good} and evil. 3. How do the accounts suggest that they did not have free will? They were given two choices: eat the fruit or don’t eat the fruit. Was it not their will to eat the fruit? Who made them eat the fruit? Where is the contradiction?

1. Ignorance does not defeat fault, but it defeats responsibility. One cannot be responsible for offending another person when they didn't know what they said would offend that person.
2. Impossible or not, the passage says that Adam and Eve did not know good and evil. In order to acquire something you have to be lacking it in the first place.
3. You're right, I concede on that point. I was going somewhat off of the idea that sin derives from free will and the Garden was supposed to be the perfect place free of sin.

[Gods_Mercenary]

It's a friggin religious myth, given that the doctrines of original sin, or even the codification of what constitutes sin (still unclear) were non existant, the myth obviously isn't supposed to take those into account.

[Tycoon]

The sin was disobedience. God told them not to eat, but they did, that suggest to me A&E knew some level of right and wrong, they ate the fruit of knowledge before they eat the fruit of eternal life, thats why they were kicked out of Eden.

Regardless of what you think the passage says otherwise. In order to acquire something you must be lacking it. If they couldn't even understand what to be naked was then how do you think they could understand not to eat from the tree when they're being coerced by talking serpents that God himself created, as he created everything under Christian pretenses.

[bulldogsfiend]

Just a theory,
In order to have free will choices must be a viable option. So maybe God created a talking serpent to balance his commandment not to eat from the tree with the temptation to eat from the tree. That way A&E had a clear choice a commandment to not eat and the temptation to eat.

While technically even though God told them to not eat of the tree they still had the choice to but with the addition of the serpent they had just as much reason to eat from it as to not eat from it. Giving them actual free will for now the choice is theirs' with equal reason for doing either action.

If only they had ate from the tree of eternal life first...that would solve a lot of problems =)

[Tycoon]

Just a theory, In order to have free will choices must be a viable option. So maybe God created a talking serpent to balance his commandment not to eat from the tree with the temptation to eat from the tree. That way A&E had a clear choice a commandment to not eat and the temptation to eat. While technically even though God told them to not eat of the tree they still had the choice to but with the addition of the serpent they had just as much reason to eat from it as to not eat from it. Giving them actual free will for now the choice is theirs' with equal reason for doing either action. If only they had ate from the tree of eternal life first...that would solve a lot of problems =)

The ability to make choices is not free will, but rather just will. So long as a person's choices have a cause, a reason, or an explanation, they are not free. According to the bible Adam and Eve chose to eat from the tree for several reasons - because the serpent told them to, because the fruit was good, and because doubtless they were curious.

So in this case, no, it was not equal. The temptations outweighed the doubts.

[bulldogsfiend]

Quote by: Tycoon The ability to make choices is not free will, but rather just will. So long as a person's choices have a cause, a reason, or an explanation, they are not free. According to the bible Adam and Eve chose to eat from the tree for several reasons - because the serpent told them to, because the fruit was good, and because doubtless they were curious. So in this case, no, it was not equal. The temptations outweighed the doubts.

every action has a cause so according to this idea free will itself is an illusion.

[Tycoon]

every action has a cause so according to this idea free will itself is an illusion.

I know. We don't have free will. It's one of my strictly laid out beliefs.

[bulldogsfiend]

Quote by: Tycoon I know. We don't have free will. It's one of my strictly laid out beliefs.

are you familiar with the concept of compatibilism?