An idea on original sin / fallen world

[cloudyday2]

I have noticed that many times there seems to be no good choice in life. The lesser of two evils seems to be the best I can do.

There is also the saying "Oh what a web of woe we weave when first we practice to deceive". I have noticed there is some truth to that saying, because evil choices tend to make good choices in the future impossible. For example, if a nation goes to war then the soldiers have only two evil choices - kill or be killed.

So maybe "original sin" and the "fallen world" are identical. After the first sin of Adam, the truly good choices in the future disappear. A person cannot be free of sin, because all the choices are sinful and evil. The only fix for this problem is to create a new world to replace the fallen world.

The problem with this idea is accommodating the claim that Jesus lived free of sin. If the fallen world has no truly good choices available then Jesus would have been forced to sin like every other human.

 

[joshua 1 9]

For example, if a nation goes to war then the soldiers have only two evil choices - kill or be killed.

They can choose if they want to go to war or not. Training is designed to prepare them and to give them an idea of what they are getting themselves into. The advantages to going to war is they help pay for your education and they give you a government job. This is the only opportunity a lot of people have.

The lesser of two evils

The right choice is not the easy choice. Can we tell a 13 year old girl that life is the right choice and that she should keep her baby when we know how difficult that is going to be for her. Still life is always the right choice and over the years they will not regret having that child.

 

[“Paisios”]

The problem with this idea is accommodating the claim that Jesus lived free of sin. If the fallen world has no truly good choices available then Jesus would have been forced to sin like every other human.

I was with you up until this point. Because Jesus is God, He can overcome this lack of good choices in the world. He gives us hope that sin can be overcome, and restores the goodness to the world that was lost through our first fore parents’ sins.

 

[cloudyday2]

I was with you up until this point. Because Jesus is God, He can overcome this lack of good choices in the world. He gives us hope that sin can be overcome, and restores the goodness to the world that was lost through our first fore parents’ sins.

The only way for Jesus to overcome the lack of choices is for him to never be born.

HOWEVER, maybe Jesus can avoid the GUILT for sin. One monk said that unswerving obedience to a spiritual father protects the follower from guilt. Maybe the unswerving obedience of Jesus to the Father protected him from guilt for the unavoidably evil choices necessary in a fallen world.

 

[Not David]

The only way for Jesus to overcome the lack of choices is for him to never be born.

HOWEVER, maybe Jesus can avoid the GUILT for sin. One monk said that unswerving obedience to a spiritual father protects the follower from guilt. Maybe the unswerving obedience of Jesus to the Father protected him from guilt for the unavoidably evil choices necessary in a fallen world.

Neither Paisios nor I understand original sin as sharing the guilt of Adam.

 

[cloudyday2]

@Paisios , another possibly is wish versus action. Jesus taught that a person who wished to commit adultery was guilty of adultery. Is it possible that a person who did NOT wish to commit adultery can commit adultery without guilt?

The sinless life of Jesus might have been due to his wishes rather than his acts.

 

[“Paisios”]

The only way for Jesus to overcome the lack of choices is for him to never be born.

HOWEVER, maybe Jesus can avoid the GUILT for sin. One monk said that unswerving obedience to a spiritual father protects the follower from guilt. Maybe the unswerving obedience of Jesus to the Father protected him from guilt for the unavoidably evil choices necessary in a fallen world.

@Paisios , another possibly is wish versus action. Jesus taught that a person who wished to commit adultery was guilty of adultery. Is it possible that a person who did NOT wish to commit adultery can commit adultery without guilt?

The sinless life of Jesus might have been due to his wishes rather than his acts.

I am probably not wise enough nor do I have the clarity of thought, especially after a long day of work in medicine, to adequately phrase where lie my points of disagreement with these thoughts. It does seem to me that we have some common beliefs here, but some significant points of divergence. Pardon me for not responding more tonight. I am weary.

But I will try to respond more tomorrow after work, as I think this line of thought is quite interesting and I would like to see where it leads.

 

[cloudyday2]

This issue of obedience reminds me of the Bhagavad Gita. Actions and even inactions have effects on the world and bind the person to karma and endless reincarnations. The Gita suggested that the solution was action without attachment to outcome. I had been puzzled by how that suggestion could be implemented, but I just realized that obedience makes that possible. The Gita emphasizes the importance of fulfilling your duties. The warrior is advised to satisfy his duty by killing his loved ones in the opposing army. This is action without attachment to outcome.

The Lord's Prayer says "thy will be done". This is action without attachment to outcome - obedience to the Father's will. The Crucifixion is an example of this, because Jesus is candid that he would rather not be crucified.

 

[Halbhh]

I have noticed that many times there seems to be no good choice in life. The lesser of two evils seems to be the best I can do.

There is also the saying "Oh what a web of woe we weave when first we practice to deceive". I have noticed there is some truth to that saying, because evil choices tend to make good choices in the future impossible. For example, if a nation goes to war then the soldiers have only two evil choices - kill or be killed.

So maybe "original sin" and the "fallen world" are identical. After the first sin of Adam, the truly good choices in the future disappear. A person cannot be free of sin, because all the choices are sinful and evil. The only fix for this problem is to create a new world to replace the fallen world.

The problem with this idea is accommodating the claim that Jesus lived free of sin. If the fallen world has no truly good choices available then Jesus would have been forced to sin like every other human.

Or...that fallen world would have to kill him...or try to.

 

[timewerx]

So maybe "original sin" and the "fallen world" are identical. After the first sin of Adam, the truly good choices in the future disappear. A person cannot be free of sin, because all the choices are sinful and evil. The only fix for this problem is to create a new world to replace the fallen world.

There is still a way to turning an evil choice and having a good outcome out of it.

For example, earning money. Why not use money and free time to helping people who are struggling in seeking the Truth, instead of using it to buy expensive stuff you don't really need or waste on hobbies / leisure?

Jesus and the disciples acknowledged that money is evil.....BUT they actually kept some of it. Using that evil for good, they used money for their cause.

 

[timothyu]

Maybe the unswerving obedience of Jesus to the Father protected him from guilt for the unavoidably evil choices necessary in a fallen world.

By doing only the will of the Father, there was no choice to be made here. Simple. People often fail to understand there is a third option simply because the Kingdom and what it stands for has been ignored in a religion which professes God but is more intent upon the world. The world no more likes competition from the Kingdom than the priests did with Jesus.

 

[TheOldWays]

i don't think people are supposed to be free of sin. Jesus is characterized as the exception.

 

[timothyu]

God originally kept us in the Garden for a reason. It was separate from the world as we know it for a reason. We and the Garden were not of this world or it's ways. Once we became who we are, divided by the knowledge of good and evil, we could not remain in the Garden for we no long belonged in that environment. So we were cast into a world built upon opposites where we now belonged. If we lived a sin free life here would we belong or would the Kingdom (Garden 2) be a more logical choice? It also begs the question if God made this world where imperfection fit in... or it being the realm of the Adversary, it was the rebellious angels that made it. We also being adversarial to the will of God, would fit right in.

 

[cloudyday2]

i don't think people are supposed to be free of sin. Jesus is characterized as the exception.

What about "repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is near"?

 

[Chesterton]

I have noticed that many times there seems to be no good choice in life. The lesser of two evils seems to be the best I can do.

Sometimes, not always. I think most of the time, we can do positive good.

A person cannot be free of sin, because all the choices are sinful and evil.

Not all choices are sinful and evil. We can do good. But even when we have to choose the lesser of two evils, that would not be counted as sin, IF we have no other good choice.

 

[Robban]

I have noticed that many times there seems to be no good choice in life. The lesser of two evils seems to be the best I can do.

There is also the saying "Oh what a web of woe we weave when first we practice to deceive". I have noticed there is some truth to that saying, because evil choices tend to make good choices in the future impossible. For example, if a nation goes to war then the soldiers have only two evil choices - kill or be killed.

So maybe "original sin" and the "fallen world" are identical. After the first sin of Adam, the truly good choices in the future disappear. A person cannot be free of sin, because all the choices are sinful and evil. The only fix for this problem is to create a new world to replace the fallen world.

The problem with this idea is accommodating the claim that Jesus lived free of sin. If the fallen world has no truly good choices available then Jesus would have been forced to sin like every other human.

Rather the tail on a lion than the head on a fox.

According to the story Adam and Eves were opened, after eating the fruit.

They became aware.

Somewhere else it says, (John 9:41)

"If you were blind you would be without sin."

Making a choice is about judgement, putting one thing over another,

It can involve scheming and plotting.

"How far can I go and still be within the law."

It maybe called smart or wise, but leads to no good.

In any case when it comes to chojce making,
all the biggies are already made for us.

"Today rich tomorrow a pauper.
Today a pauper tomorrow rich."

 

[TheOldWays]

What about "repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is near"?

so, repent then. doesn't mean you're gonna stop being sinful.

 

[timothyu]

so, repent then. doesn't mean you're gonna stop being sinful.

But it is a good step in admitting you don't like what you are or the human condition, and agree that God's will is better than ours thus changing allegiance and seeking to follow His will, not ours..

 

[TheOldWays]

But it is a good step in admitting you don't like what you are or the human condition, and agree that God's will is better than ours thus changing allegiance and seeking to follow His will, not ours..

repentance is a life long process. no one is going to be without sin. if that was so, the blessed Lady of Medjugorje wouldn't have suggested monthly confession as a life long remedy. gotta work at it of course.

 

[timothyu]

repentance is a life long process. no one is going to be without sin. if that was so, the blessed Lady of Medjugorje wouldn't have suggested monthly confession as a life long remedy. gotta work at it of course.

True and confession need only be admitting to your self what a screw up we are.