Original Sin Contradiction

[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]

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]

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?

[Tycoon]

are you familiar with the concept of compatibilism?

No, actually. Do elaborate.

[bulldogsfiend]

Determinism is the theory of thought that everything is causally determined (every action has a cause)

Free will would imply that there is nothing causing my action.

compatabilism is a philosophical theory that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive of one another.

Compatibilism and incompatibilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

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

Are you suggesting that it meant the knowledge of everything {good} and {evil?}

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.

And plus eating from a tree of all knowledge would have given Adam and Eve the knowledge of how to live forever, which they would have then used to live forever.

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

What?

who made/ created the "talking serpant"?

God

Who lied and said "surely you will die" if you eat the fruit?

Not aware of anyone who lied by saying that.

Who said you won't die?

The Serpent

Now explain why A&E would be at fault?

Again, because creating the serpent, saying “surely you will die,” and saying you won’t die, is not a prerequisite for {fault.}

Who didn't die when they ate the fruit?

Don’t you mean, who did die when they ate the fruit?

God didn't disclose all the information they needed to make a sound decision.

Let’s see, God tells them that they will die if they ate the fruit of the tree, and yet, you are of the opinion that he didn’t disclose all the information that they needed to make a {sound} decision? What other information did they need to help them decide that they should not eat of the tree? If the consequences of death was not enough to persuade them to make the {sound} decision of not eating of the tree, then what information do you think would have led them to make an even more {sound} decision?

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

Evidently they did. They knew that death was not a {good} thing.

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.

Who said that they were ignorant?

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.

Or the immortality that they had already obtained from eating from the tree of life.

[Diogenes]

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.

I may be splitting hairs here but the story actually has nothing to do with Free Will...it's about Adam and Eve disobeying god and being cast out of the Garden.

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".

Someone else in this thread, not you, thought this meant they were ignorant...Adam and Eve were not ignorant...they were naive. Like children. When they ate of the tree they became like adults...they were no longer naive...so instead of being like innocent children romping around in the nude they became aware of their nakedness...they were no longer innocent or naive.

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.

Again...they were naive like innocent children...children are told how to behave, what they can or cannot do, they knew it was wrong because they were told it was wrong...they knew that it was not allowed. Their understanding was that of children.

When you read the story...in the Garden they are as children, not ignorant, but rather naive/innocent...then they became as adults. This is where you get the saying attributed to Jesus ' you must become as children ' or ' as one of these ' pointing at a child...it was a reference to going back to where it all began...to become once again innocent, obedient, like a child.