And the next topic is....

Apr 15, 2007 22:05

This purpose of this is mostly to lead in to my next topic ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

mad_dog_bowers April 17 2007, 21:46:21 UTC
I dont care for the thought that our only free will is the will to sin or not to sin, although that undoubtedly is an important part of it. There are many many other decisions we make though that I believe are our own, from who to marry to what career to follow. Where to live, how to worship, from the simplest thing to nearly the most complex life-spanning project.

If I get my theology right, however, we would be as the angels if not for the eating of the fruit. Meaning that we would remain in a sinless world doing no wrong, only living in oneness with God and and doing only his will. Thats the way I interpret it at least. Life would be quite a different affair if this were so since we wouldn't really be doing anything but frolicking and being happy.

Reply

sargonepsilon April 18 2007, 00:28:09 UTC
But angels can sin as well, assuming you believe in the war in heaven. They do have the choice not to serve God. In fact, as far as we know, they may even have the choice to ignore God as many people do.

Reply

synderon April 18 2007, 01:23:32 UTC
So angels are capable of evil. Were Adam and Eve not capable of evil until they ate of the tree and learned the nature of what is good and what is evil? Or were they like children who couldn't understand right and wrong and then God made them "grow up" and understand as a punishment? If we were capable of evil anyway, what was the point of the tree existing?

Reply

sargonepsilon April 18 2007, 02:22:23 UTC
As I always interpreted it, Man was not capable of evil until we ate from the tree, but we were already capable of breaking the rules, clearly.

That is, admittedly, an interpretation, and I don't feel like double checking the language to see what lead me there at the moment.

Reply

synderon April 18 2007, 02:29:08 UTC
So disobeying God's commands isn't necessarily evil?

Reply

sargonepsilon April 18 2007, 03:56:11 UTC
We're getting into the realm of theology where my opinion doesn't count for much, but if you're asking, I'd agree with that statement.

For me, even when I was Christian, evil is different than sin. The word we translate sin, comes from hebrew who's literal meaning is in the area of "failing to live up to expectations." I think the difference is motive. In this context, evil would be deliberately choosing to defy God as opposed to following him. Sin is when you defy God's will through ignorance, or through lack of strength (physical or mental).

Using that definition I'd argue that being unaware of the nature of evil, makes you incapable of an evil act, but does not shield you from sin. The story works fine here, as Adam and Eve didn't eat from the tree in order to Defy God. The basically succumbed to temptation.

Reply

synderon April 18 2007, 05:39:39 UTC
This was my thought as well, which leads me to what was going to be my next topic. Adam and Eve couldn't possibly have understood the ramifications for eating the fruit. God put a child-like being in a garden where Satan himself had access. Then he put a tree of knowledge in front of them that they weren't allowed to eat from. Maybe it's just me but this seems like leaving a child alone with a cake with razorblades in it and telling him not to eat it. The odds seemed stacked against them. I find it hard to see how they should be held responsible when they didn't know right from wrong and couldn't have understood the concept of death.

Reply

sargonepsilon April 18 2007, 21:15:34 UTC
That's almost exactly how I feel about the subject, although I would point out that there is no biblical evidence that Satan was present in the garden.

I've always thought Genesis is very problematic for people who believe in the infallibility of the bible. There is a lot of really weird stuff there.

Reply

mad_dog_bowers April 20 2007, 22:02:50 UTC
I would point out a few things here ( ... )

Reply

synderon April 22 2007, 10:02:04 UTC

1) God's word is just. If he says something shall be one way and it is not, it is unjust, regardless of reason or our perception of what is fair.

2) We cannot fathom what His motive was for doing this or why he planned it this way, because clearly he knew what was going to happen both because he is timeless and because it was pretty obvious. We can really assume anything about this situation because we don't know what choices were involved or why He wanted things to turn out the way they did. Refferring back to #1, its irrelevant anyway because whatever his reasons were they were just, since God defines what justice is.I was hoping there was a better answer than that but maybe "because God says so" IS the only explanation that can be given ( ... )

Reply

mad_dog_bowers April 20 2007, 21:52:37 UTC
Thats a very sound theological argument, and based on the way u have always interpreted it I loosely agree with you.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up