Original Sin

[??????????]

Yes, I believe in Original Sin

How can you not, when the world is full of corrupt and egoisistic people?

True. But as has been pointed out this is the result of free will. Infants are perfect as are young children until what is called "The age of reason" which is around 12 years of age.

Children is as bad or worse than adults, the differents is that they at least doesn´t know better

No, certainly not so. Do you have or have you ever been around children?

[Blue Rectangle]

Yes, I believe in Original Sin

How can you not, when the world is full of corrupt and egoisistic people?

True. But as has been pointed out this is the result of free will. Infants are perfect as are young children until what is called "The age of reason" which is around 12 years of age.

Children is as bad or worse than adults, the differents is that they at least doesn´t know better

No, certainly not so. Do you have or have you ever been around children?

I'm also a father and I agree with you, States.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The idea of rules is teach people what not to do BEFORE they attain firsthand knowledge of the consequences of their actions.

Jesus instructs against blind following of rules.  Strict adherence to The Law can itself be less lawful than doing what is right (Mk 3:1-6):

Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent.

How are we to know what is good or evil, if the Law technically in conflict with what is good?  Jesus broke the Law!  Did he commit a sin by the good act of healing a man?

The Law was not in conflict,  Jesus was speaking about their APPLICATION of the law, meaning they were applying it without common sense and love…in any case, you are off subject.

---

Gen 3:22
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil..."

Adam did not have "knowledge of good and evil" before eating the apple.  This is perfectly clear despite the "in our image, in out likeness" quote.  After eating the apple, Adam's eyes "were opened".  It was only then that Adam became (more) like God.  At no point in human history has man been exactly like God, so you cannot infer that any similarities before the Fall necessarily included similar moral judgment.

You can’t see the forest for the trees…

Did Adam become more like God in the single aspect that he attained “knowledge of good and evil"?  Absolutely. 

Was gaining that knowledge profitable for Adam?  Absolutely NOT.

And what about the other aspects associated with the consequences of Adam’s actions?  Did they make him more like God or less like God?  Did his sin help him retain the “image of God” in which he was created, or did he change into a corruptible image?

So, although he gained knowledge, it cost him his relationship with God and ultimately his life!

Therefore, overall, Adam’s “gain” was a huge loss and he was less like God.

---

Please answer this question: What does "knowledge of good and evil" mean?

Didn’t we already cover this?  Why don’t you use scripture to interpret scripture?

Rom 16:19 I want you to be wise about what is good, yet innocent about what is evil.

1Cor 14:20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.

Rev 2:24 [Those] who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they call them--I place no other burden on you.

Like I said before, if God tells me not to learn the “deep things of Satan”, then that tells me that there are certain things that I am better off being ignorant of.  And I can remain ignorant of them by following God’s commands, since following his commands will keep me on a path that does not lead to destructive knowledge.

Is it profitable for me to know what it is like to murder someone?  Is it profitable for me to know what it feels like to cheat on my wife?  Is it profitable for me to know what it is like to engage in homosexuality?  Is it profitable for me to know what it is like to rape my 8 month old daughter?...THERE IS CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE THAT IS NOT PROFITABLE TO ATTAIN! 

Does God know the anguish and remorse of someone that has messed up their life through drug use?  Absolutely.   In fact, since God knows our every thought, he basically has firsthand knowledge of the pain caused by sin.  But just because God has firsthand knowledge of it, does he want us share in that direct knowledge?  Of course not.

It is the same thing with my kids.  There is certain knowledge that I hope they never attain.  That is exactly what Rom 16:19, 1Cor 14:20 and Rev 2:24 are saying:  there is certain knowledge that is destructive to you.  Why can’t you understand that?

---

And your own quote earlier advised attaining knowledge of good.  It's a double-sided coin; you can't have one without the other. 

You don’t want to attain the knowledge of what is good through remorse.

Tell me, after Adam and Eve were removed from God’s presence, do you think they reminisced about the “good times”?  Isn’t it better to retain a good position than to screw up and realize how good you had it?

Rev 2:5  “Remember the height from which you have fallen!” (Jesus speaking to the church in Ephesus)

Is it really more profitable to fully grasp what “good” is by throwing yourself down in a pit?

---

The good news is that our knowledge can lead us to greater goodness:
 

Yeah, right, I can really see that in the case of Adam.  He really used his knowledge of good and evil to rise above his initial standing with God, didn’t he?  And isn’t the world a better place?  After all, his one act of disobedience did condemn the whole world! 

You really need to study the following verse:

Rom 3:8 Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.

Sin NEVER results in anything good!

[Blue Rectangle]

OK, let me see if I have this straight:
--Knowledge of good and evil is itself evil.
--A moral code is not necessary.  In fact, a moral code is evil if it includes knowledge of what is immoral.
--The only guide to right action is God's Law.  The Law allows us to do what is right without understanding right and wrong.

[Blue Rectangle]

From the Contemporary English Version (Gen 2:9):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From the New International Readers Version:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

OK, let me see if I have this straight:
--Knowledge of good and evil is itself evil.
--A moral code is not necessary.  In fact, a moral code is evil if it includes knowledge of what is immoral.
--The only guide to right action is God's Law.  The Law allows us to do what is right without understanding right and wrong.

That is NO WHERE close to a representation of what I have posted, nor does it represent my beliefs.

---

Frankly, doesn’t a discussion about Adam’s sin require knowledge of the bible’s opinion?  After all, the word “Adam” occurs only 7 times in the New Testament and finding those verses only takes a few seconds:

http://biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=adam&version1=31&searchtype=all&bookset=2
 
So don’t you find it a tad strange you didn’t even know the bible explicitly states Adam was NOT deceived, yet you believe you are sufficiently prepared to debate this topic?

Have you ever pondered why Adam deliberately chose death?  You see, if you understood why Adam chose death, then you would understand that Adam was a lot smarter and a lot more aware of what was going on than what you give him credit for.  In fact, he understood his situation much better than you do because you refuse to study the biblical account along with the bible's own interpretation of the account.

Neither Christ nor Adam were deceived, but both their brides were.  So why do you think Christ, the Second Adam, deliberately chose to die for his deceived bride, the church?  Why do you think Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come, deliberately chose death when he saw his bride deceived?

[Blue Rectangle]

So don’t you find it a tad strange you didn’t even know the bible explicitly states Adam was NOT deceived, yet you believe you are sufficiently prepared to debate this topic?

Don't you find it strange that much of your argument has been based on the notion that the Tree of Knowledge did not grant the power to discern between good and evil, and that Adam already had this power before eating, and I provided two translations that say the exact opposite?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So don’t you find it a tad strange you didn’t even know the bible explicitly states Adam was NOT deceived, yet you believe you are sufficiently prepared to debate this topic?

Don't you find it strange that much of your argument has been based on the notion that the Tree of Knowledge did not grant the power to discern between good and evil, and that Adam already had this power before eating, and I provided two translations that say the exact opposite?

I would argue discernment between good and evil and knowledge of good and evil are two completely different things, since I can discern something as evil the very first time I encounter it without having had prior knowledge of it.

Discernment and knowledge are NOT synonyms, yet you are attempting to use them as if they were.

---

But let's step back from arguing over definitions for a moment and see if we can agree on a couple of things:

Do you agree that God wanted to protect Adam from the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" and therefore God commanded Adam not to eat from it?

[Blue Rectangle]

So don’t you find it a tad strange you didn’t even know the bible explicitly states Adam was NOT deceived, yet you believe you are sufficiently prepared to debate this topic?

Don't you find it strange that much of your argument has been based on the notion that the Tree of Knowledge did not grant the power to discern between good and evil, and that Adam already had this power before eating, and I provided two translations that say the exact opposite?

I would argue discernment between good and evil and knowledge of good and evil are two completely different things, since I can discern something as evil the very first time I encounter it without having had prior knowledge of it.

Discernment and knowledge are NOT synonyms, yet you are attempting to use them as if they were.

Both words are plausible translations of the Hebrew source.  Another choice could be "wisdom".  The woman is drawn to the fruit because she desires "wisdom" in many translations.  The Hebrew word "da'as", which is traditionally translated "knowledge", does not mean information, but rather a practical kind of knowledge.  You interpret this practical knowledge to be the knowledge of what it is like to commit an evil act.  I think of it as the practical knowledge one can apply to identify good or evil.  There are many Jewish and Christian scholars on each side of this debate.

But let's step back from arguing over definitions for a moment and see if we can agree on a couple of things:

Do you agree that God wanted to protect Adam from the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" and therefore God commanded Adam not to eat from it?

I cannot understand why God would place the Tree in the Garden if he did not want Adam to eat from it.  It is a mystery.  This leads to the larger paradox of why a perfect and omnipotent being would allow bad things to happen.  God commanded Adam not to eat.  Logic tells us that this means God did not want Adam to eat it, but logic also tells us that God, by making the Tree available, did want Adam to eat.  God must be beyond our understanding.

[Platypus]

talk about partisan divide...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You interpret this practical knowledge to be the knowledge of what it is like to commit an evil act.  I think of it as the practical knowledge one can apply to identify good or evil.  There are many Jewish and Christian scholars on each side of this debate.

And this is where the rubber meets the road, for there is ONLY ONE WAY to distinguish good from evil:

Heb 6:11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

So, since the word of God, which Adam did receive from God in the form of the commandment, is what is to be used to distinguish good from evil, Adam had everything he needed to make the correct choice.

Rom 7:7 Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

And since Adam had the word of God and was NOT deceived like Eve, he made a conscience choice to disobey God, even though he knew it was wrong.

---

Do you agree that God wanted to protect Adam from the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" and therefore God commanded Adam not to eat from it?

I cannot understand why God would place the Tree in the Garden if he did not want Adam to eat from it.  It is a mystery.  This leads to the larger paradox of why a perfect and omnipotent being would allow bad things to happen.  God commanded Adam not to eat.  Logic tells us that this means God did not want Adam to eat it, but logic also tells us that God, by making the Tree available, did want Adam to eat.  God must be beyond our understanding.

Your idea that it was somehow good for Adam to attain the knowledge of good and evil is the source of your confusion.

God also allows murder to be available to us, but does that mean God wants us to murder?  Just because he allows us to have free will doesn't mean he wants us to disobey:

Deut 30:19 This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.

---

Adam was condemned because of that one act of disobedience:

Rom 5:16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.”

---

Your interpretation that Adam somehow had to attain the knowledge of good and evil in order to go on to bigger and better things is NOT a view shared by scripture:

Rom 3:8 Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.

---

And you have yet to respond to the following verses:

Rom 16:19 I want you to be wise about what is good, yet innocent about what is evil.

1Cor 14:20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.

Rev 2:24 [Those] who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they call them--I place no other burden on you.

Tell me how I am wrong to equate these 3 passages to God’s command to Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

[MaC]

no it doesn't exist.  How can I be guilty of something I didn't do personally.  Even if Adam did eat the apple, saying we're all guilty is implying the compostion fallacy.  Adam is a human, Adam betrayed God, therefore all humans betrayed God.  I think God is above these fallacies.

[CheeseWhiz]

These numbers are extreamly interesting

Democrats: 90% do not believe in the original sin.
Republicans: 71.43% do believe in the original sin.
Independent/third party: 84.62% do not believe in the original sin.

I definatly don't believe in the original sin.