No Original Sin!

[rwc109]

Dear friend,

I just wanted to come back to Romans 5:13...as you used it to prove a point. Yet I do not think that it is being used in the proper context.

If you take the verses surrounding it Romans 5:12 - 14
' Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned - for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.'

....Straight away, the statement is that 'sin entered through one man and death through sin' not just his own death, but death came to all men. Yes it says 'because all men sinned' but it was on account of the first man. Where you argue that Adam could not be held accountable or in turn that we can not be held accountable or punished for Adams sin - which if someone is not accountable they are not punished for it, this would imply that there would be no consequence for him or others the same, yet the consequence was death.....the reign of death. And that death reigns over everyone who does not have the law, the law makes people accountable because they are breaking set commandments, yet even without these they are sinful and subject to death. If as you used this statement on its own Romans 5:13, then you can say that everyone who is ignorant of the law when they stand before God on judgement day, will be pronounced innocent. Therefore what you are also saying is that where the Bible says that Jesus died for the Jew and the Gentile, he neednt really have died for the Gentile, because none of the gentiles would have been accountable for sin, as they do not have Gods law and are ignorant of it.

Also here, Romans 5:15 ' But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ over flow to the many!'

Here it plainly says that 'many died by the trespass of one man'.

Romans 5:17 ' For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man.....'

Death reigned and not just over Adam, so because of his trespass many bore the consequence. Roamns 5:18 says it even plainer again.

'Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.'

Because of one trespass all men were condemned. So from the very onset, Adam, his action his trespass already condemned us all before we were even born. The consequence of one trespass was condemnation for all men.

Also, your response to the verse given from 1Samuel 3:13-14, It still reads to me that God had condemned the house of Eli forever because of the iniquity of his sons, and that God held Eli responsible for their sins. I don't know if you read it, but that is what the word says in that particular part. I know that you have said that scripture says different in five other places, but perhaps if you could translate and give a different meaning then to Samuel 3:13-14 it would be more plausible to argue against what it says in that instance. If you refute that at any time in scripture nobody at all can be held accountable or condemned for the acts of another, this particular verse cannot mean what is written.

God bless,
Love your friend eve.

Eze 18:19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.

All that Adam did was to take the knowledge of good and evil by which all men are condemned when THEY sin [because THEY are not innocent in their trespass as Adam was INNOCENT in disobeying God WITHOUT the knowledge that would have made him guilty]

Thus all men are guilty through Adam because tHEY have sinned and because Adam caused them NOT to be innocent in trespass...

This is what paul and the rest of scripture unanimously says, there are no exceptions to God's rule, a man is innocent if ignorant of the law and NO-ONE is guilty of another person's crime, how could they be ?

BUT mankind MOSTLY learns from parents and teachers INSTEAD of from God thus the sins of the father are very OFTEN COPIED by the sons because they LEARN them... some people never escape from this tradition of sin handed down from generation to generation, it is the problem of traditions of men which bind people to sin closer than they feel to scripture or to God ... thus whole lines of descent are abandonned to sin by God simply because their culture, their tradition is to specificaly trust only in tradition ... if the tradition is corrupt then so is the whole line of human descent and the CAUSE of the corruption is wholly upon the originator, the father of the line who made the original error , but nevertheless the sons are not guilty because the father sinned, they are guilty because they KNEW in their hearts that they were wrong and yet still followed the lead of their earthly father , they are still only guilty of their own sin even though the temptation to do it came by instruction from their parent ...

God for instance states four times in the scripture that the iniquity of the fathers shall be VISITED upon the children to the third and fourth generation, but it means that this is as long as it takes for strongly held false traditions of sin to die out if they are ever going to, yet they DO die out in some people which again shows that the sons are not responsible for their father's sin, only for COPYING it and DOING their oWN sin knowing because of Adam that it is a sin because he took for us the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil that lets us KNOW that we are sinning ...

So you NEED to read all the scripture to UNDERSTAND and you NEED to NOT follow traditions of men in churches and elsewhere which may be FALSE, but PROVE ALL THINGS for yourself by yearning to God for His truth by the spirit of truth promised by Jesus [thus you NEED to have NO preconceptions when asking God for His truth, it is no use telling God what you want Him to say, He will just ignore you and wait till you ask without thinking you know the answer!

Joh 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God.

1Th 5:19 Quench not the Spirit.
1Th 5:20 Despise not prophesyings.
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits.
--------[you would no doubt be shocked that there are many false prophets in the churches by this test from Christ]----

Ephesians 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all ....truth

Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men,
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

*** 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
*** 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
*** 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

---Thus we need t meditate in God's scroiptures as David showed us to do, not just read scraps here and there which have been abused to support false doctrines of men like the so-called doctrine of original sin which is definitively false by all scripture ... to meditate on simply ceases from ones own thoughts about a scripture one has read or a problem and allow God to tell the answer to your mind because you accept that you do not know and YEARN to Him in praise and prayer to know His truth and no other...

 

[rwc109]

Pro 5:22 His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins.

2Kings 14:6 But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2Chronicles 25:4 But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.

Eze 18:14 Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like,

Eze 18:15 That hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, hath not defiled his neighbour's wife,

Eze 18:16 Neither hath oppressed any, hath not withholden the pledge, neither hath spoiled by violence, but hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment,

Eze 18:17 That hath taken off his hand from the poor, that hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live.

Eze 18:18 As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity.

Eze 18:19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Eze 18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Eze 18:22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

Eze 18:25 Yet ye say, The way of the LORD is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?

Eze 18:26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.

Eze 18:27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

Eze 18:28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Eze 18:29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the LORD is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?

 

[Junior Sparagus]

Yikes! You may want to turn of your Scripture Bot Randomizer(tm). I think it's on the "blitz" setting!

I guess that is a semi-snarky way of saying that I have no idea what point you are trying to make with that scripture reading, at least as it relates to the concept of Original Sin. Original Sin in no way asserts that children should be slain in punishment for actions of the parents, that consequences of sins committed by the wicked will not catch up with them eventually, or that sin does not lead to death.

The scripture you refer addresses those three themes (substitutionary punishment, the effect of sin, the death penalty of sin), but in no way argues against the principles of Original Sin. Could you explain your understanding of Original Sin? Perhaps you are working with a definition that is uncommon or unknown to me.

Thanks.

 

[stranger]

What is wrong with the doctrine of original sin :

1). it depends on the Idea that Adam sinned in the garden, but not having knowledge of good and evil until after he disobeyed God, Adam was INNOCENT of sin, and he did not sin after eating the fruit whilst in the garden either ... thus there is no record of Adam sinning!

2). People do not sin because they have a sinful nature but simply because God is with-holding the spirit of truth that would alow them to resist Satan's temptations ... else Jesus would have sinned nad the righteous saints of Israel would have sinned...

Mankind is indeed susceptible to sin because of God's purpose in mankind, in evil, in this earth and this time, but it has nothing to do with presuming a sin of Adam in the garden which never occurred

3). No-one is in any way responsible for anyone else's sin or more or less sinful on account of Adam.

4). Adam DID however take the knowledge of good and evil for all of us, so that unlike him before he took the fruit, we are NOT innocent, thus he brought sin upon us for our transgressions by taking away the innocence... we KNOW when we sin and so we are held guilty by God of our sin

Thus sin came by Adam, not by his sin [if any], because he took the knowledge that prevents us from being guiltless in disobedience of God, of unlovingness... but we are only guilty insofar as we have sinned ourselves...

 

[tcampen]

If the just fertilized egg is a person, and all people have sinned, what sin did that egg-person commit 3 seconds after conception? I never could figure that one out.

 

[Junior Sparagus]

You are confusing a state of sin with an act of sin.

An act of sin is readily, physically identifiable: unprovoked, you punch the mailman in the nose.

A state of sin is something that can only be clearly seen by God, can be imperfectly identified by those who follow him, and is vaguely understood by all. Jesus spoke of this state when he accused us of commiting adultery when we lust, not just when we have unlawful sex. He addressed it in the hearts of those who prepared to stone the fallen woman, when he called on the sinless one to cast the first stone.

The state of sin truly is something you are conceived with. Just as we all carry genetic physical imperfections (ranging from birthmarks to pronounced handicaps) from conception, we also carry the state of sin. This is why "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become righteousness of God." (2 Cor 5:21)

Jesus didn't just "not sin," he was born "without sin," the first and only man ever to be born in such away. This was the only sacrifice that could possibly atone for not just the committed sins of men, but for the sinful state into which we are born. The state of sin reigns over the lives of the unredeemed: for "death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern for the one to come." (Romans 5:14)

Even those who never commit a sin by breaking a command are deserving of sin's death penalty, because they carry with them the state of sin whose bonds we are unable to break.

Our lives would be tragic and destined for permanent doom (even if we lived the stretch of our lives in material comfort and happiness) were it not for the miraculous, tide-turning, explosion of joy and salvation that Our Redeemer brings through his sacrifice and victory.

From netbible.org:
C. Inherited Sin

• 1. Definitions:
  
  • - Inherited sin is simply “the sinful state into which all people are born” (Ryrie). We have a constant bent toward sin.
    
    - Inherited sin is also called the “sin nature” (it affected our entire being), and it is called “original sin” (emphasizing that Adam’s sin caused the corrupted nature we each inherit).
    
    - “Total depravity” is a related term expressing our total lack of merit in God’s sight. Total depravity does not mean we are as “bad” as we can be but that we are as “bad off” as we can be because we all have a totally sinful nature.
    
  2. Scripture
  
  • - Psalm 51:5 “…in sin my mother conceived me.”
    
    - Ephesians 2:3 “…by nature children (objects) of wrath”
    
    - Our emotions (Romans 1:26), our intellect (Romans 1:28) and our will (Romans 7:20) are all enslaved to sin and opposed to God.
    
  3. Penalty. The penalty of inherited sin is spiritual death. Man is born spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:3) and will be eternally separated from God in hell if our sinful condition is not remedied (Revelation 20:11-15).
  

 

[tcampen]

You are confusing a state of sin with an act of sin.

An act of sin is readily, physically identifiable: unprovoked, you punch the mailman in the nose.

A state of sin is something that can only be clearly seen by God, can be imperfectly identified by those who follow him, and is vaguely understood by all. Jesus spoke of this state when he accused us of commiting adultery when we lust, not just when we have unlawful sex. He addressed it in the hearts of those who prepared to stone the fallen woman, when he called on the sinless one to cast the first stone.

Fine. Then how can the single celled person be in a state of sin? When you say sin in the "hearts" of the individual, you're really talking about thoughts, intentions, even conciousness. The single celled person has none of these qualities. It is but a single cell not yet even divided into two cells - and utterly incapable of thought, emotions, volition, and conciousness. That single celled person is as perfect, sin-wise, as your concept of Jesus ever was. Not only did that single celled person not commit any sin, but is actually incapable of committing any sin or even thinking sinful thoughts.

What sinful nature does the single celled person have at that moment? What bent towards sin does the single celled person have 3 seconds after conception? I'm just not seeing any evidence from that single celled person such is the case. (I suppose I'm looking for independent verification outside your biblical references.)

The state of sin truly is something you are conceived with. Just as we all carry genetic physical imperfections (ranging from birthmarks to pronounced handicaps) from conception, we also carry the state of sin. This is why "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become righteousness of God." (2 Cor 5:21)

That is a theological concept which is totally at odds with the concept of a loving and just God. IMO. With that idea, how can anyone call the unborn child truely innocent? The unborn child is just as deserving of eternal torment in hell as the guy in Seattle who murdered 48 women.

Jesus didn't just "not sin," he was born "without sin," the first and only man ever to be born in such away. This was the only sacrifice that could possibly atone for not just the committed sins of men, but for the sinful state into which we are born. The state of sin reigns over the lives of the unredeemed: for "death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern for the one to come." (Romans 5:14)

Even those who never commit a sin by breaking a command are deserving of sin's death penalty, because they carry with them the state of sin whose bonds we are unable to break.

Again, such an assertion is antithetical to the concept of a loving and just supreme being, unless we twist and distort the meaning of love and justice.

Our lives would be tragic and destined for permanent doom (even if we lived the stretch of our lives in material comfort and happiness) were it not for the miraculous, tide-turning, explosion of joy and salvation that Our Redeemer brings through his sacrifice and victory.

Considering how most non-Chrisitians do not have tragic lives, I just don't see the evidence panning out for this assertion. As for the afterlife, that's speculation, and appropriate fodder for religion and faith.

 

[Junior Sparagus]

Well, considering that this began as a discussion of religion and faith, and has since been moved to the open forum on Philosophy & Morality, that may explain some of your confusion. The tragic lives to which I refer are not the ones we lead in the material world. I have been both non-Christian and Christian, and so I know that my earthly life as a non-Christian was not tragic as I lived it, nor was I unhappy or bitter. But my point is not that the life spent following anything but the Messiah is tragic as men measure lives, but as God does.

In any case, you make a false assertion that the "just, loving God" concept is at odds with the "state of sin at the cellular level" concept. It simply isn't.

For the sake of this discussion let us take the two givens at face value:

Given 1: God is good, just, omnipotent and loving.
Given 2: Humans, at the celluar, pre-conscious level are conceived in a so-called "state of sin."

Now, how to interpret these two givens simultaneously?

1) One given is FALSE. The two concepts are contradictory. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is your assertion, correct?

2) Both givens are FALSE. There is no state of sin and God, if He exists, is evil, unfair and hateful.

3) Both givens are TRUE. A good, just, omnipotent and loving God can exist within a cosmos that includes, for both unknown and known reasons, error, failure, brokeness and a "state of sin."

The reason I find option 1 to be untenable is because it contains the contradiction, not because one of the two "givens" does. An omnipotent God CAN, by definition, exist in a cosmos with a creation that contains in its inhabitants a "state of sin" even at the cellular level. You cannot claim that an omnipotent being "can't" do or be something. That contradicts the definition of omnipotence.

Option 2 does not contain such a contradiction, so if your assertion is "I believe there is no state of sin and also no just and loving God," I can understand your logic, even though the argument you make would need more evidence and support. At least, on the face of it, it is an assertion without an internal flaw.

Option 3, obviously is my assertion. An omnipotent God CAN be loving and just and allow a "state of sin" to exist in His Universe. Omnipotence is the great, cosmic, unfathomable "CAN SO!"

In any case, there are some known "reasons" for the existence of the state of sin. On one level, this sin state is what truly makes all humans equal. Furthermore, there are instructive purposes to our struggles that are often mysterious at the time, but edifying upon review. The revelation of mystery is an important purpose of the sin state.

Of course, I can't pretend to understand the "merit" in much of what results from the sin state. Nevertheless, just because I don't see the merit in something doesn't mean it is necessarily 1) non-existent, or 2) if existent, the evidence of a thoughtless, cruel and small god.

 

[tcampen]

In any case, you make a false assertion that the "just, loving God" concept is at odds with the "state of sin at the cellular level" concept. It simply isn't.

For the sake of this discussion let us take the two givens at face value:


Given 1: God is good, just, omnipotent and loving.
Given 2: Humans, at the celluar, pre-conscious level are conceived in a so-called "state of sin."

Now, how to interpret these two givens simultaneously?

1) One given is FALSE. The two concepts are contradictory. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is your assertion, correct?

2) Both givens are FALSE. There is no state of sin and God, if He exists, is evil, unfair and hateful.

3) Both givens are TRUE. A good, just, omnipotent and loving God can exist within a cosmos that includes, for both unknown and known reasons, error, failure, brokeness and a "state of sin."

The reason I find option 1 to be untenable is because it contains the contradiction, not because one of the two "givens" does. An omnipotent God CAN, by definition, exist in a cosmos with a creation that contains in its inhabitants a "state of sin" even at the cellular level. You cannot claim that an omnipotent being "can't" do or be something. That contradicts the definition of omnipotence.

Option 2 does not contain such a contradiction, so if your assertion is "I believe there is no state of sin and also no just and loving God," I can understand your logic, even though the argument you make would need more evidence and support. At least, on the face of it, it is an assertion without an internal flaw.

Option 3, obviously is my assertion. An omnipotent God CAN be loving and just and allow a "state of sin" to exist in His Universe. Omnipotence is the great, cosmic, unfathomable "CAN SO!"

You syllogism commits logical falacies, rendering the conclusions unreliable, specifically given #1: " God is good, just, omnipotent and loving."

This premise depends on a circular argument. The words "good, just, and loving" are used to describe what God is like, but then God himself is also the ultimate definition for these words. Using this falacious type of premise, virtually any assertion can be established.

For given #1 (aka a "premise") the words "good, just, and loving" must necessarily have a meaning independent of God in order to determine whether a particluar notion of God is consistent with these concepts. Thus, it is impossible to work through your syllogism without a given #1(a) - "good, just, and loving mean................"

While I admittedly did not provide independent definitions to "good, just, and loving," my point is that a God imputing a state of sin on a singel celled individual is inconsistent with the concepts of being "good, just, and loving" as I understand those words. This is why given #1(a) is required for the analysis.


So, sorry, I cannot logically work through your analysis. That is not to say, however, that I did not enjoy reading your post.

 

[Aaron11]

You syllogism commits logical falacies, rendering the conclusions unreliable, specifically given #1: " God is good, just, omnipotent and loving."

This premise depends on a circular argument. The words "good, just, and loving" are used to describe what God is like, but then God himself is also the ultimate definition for these words. Using this falacious type of premise, virtually any assertion can be established.

For given #1 (aka a "premise") the words "good, just, and loving" must necessarily have a meaning independent of God in order to determine whether a particluar notion of God is consistent with these concepts. Thus, it is impossible to work through your syllogism without a given #1(a) - "good, just, and loving mean................"

While I admittedly did not provide independent definitions to "good, just, and loving," my point is that a God imputing a state of sin on a singel celled individual is inconsistent with the concepts of being "good, just, and loving" as I understand those words. This is why given #1(a) is required for the analysis.


So, sorry, I cannot logically work through your analysis. That is not to say, however, that I did not enjoy reading your post.

All definitions are circular eventually.

 

[tcampen]

All definitions are circular eventually.

Not sure I agree with you there. But even so, at least they could be far less circular.

 

[Aaron11]

Not sure I agree with you there. But even so, at least they could be far less circular.

True, they could be far less circular and I would encourage that. However, try to define "good" for me without being circular. Initially you could pick some different words to define "good" that would appear to make the definition less than circular. However, if I asked you to define the words that you use, and truly understand the definition, you would give me other words to describe that. If it took two sets of definitions, or 100, it still would end up being circular. However, I agree with you that there is an idea of good besides "What God is" because people can be good too. However, Christians believe that whatever is good comes from God, so although it can somehow be seperated, it is hard to because we believe that all good comes from God.

 

[Alenci]

Okay, those of you who think it was not a sin to eat the fruit:


If unintentional sins are wrong for us (Leviticus 4), was it any less sinful for Adam, even though he was innocent of sin and would not have known wrong from right? It is what he did that matters, and not with what intentions...

 

[Aaron11]

Where did this come from?

 

[tcampen]

True, they could be far less circular and I would encourage that. However, try to define "good" for me without being circular. Initially you could pick some different words to define "good" that would appear to make the definition less than circular. However, if I asked you to define the words that you use, and truly understand the definition, you would give me other words to describe that. If it took two sets of definitions, or 100, it still would end up being circular. However, I agree with you that there is an idea of good besides "What God is" because people can be good too. However, Christians believe that whatever is good comes from God, so although it can somehow be seperated, it is hard to because we believe that all good comes from God.

Circular reasoning means the premises and the conclusion depend on eachother to be valid. Words are abstract and symbollic representations of other things, ideas, and relationships between them. Eventually words go back to the thing or idea they represent, and not necessarily to the thing being evauated as corresponding to those other things or ideas. So, no, it really isn't circular like:

Whatever God does is good.
Therefore, those things are good because God did them.

This is circular.

You can have an independent definition of "good" which can be used to determine whether what God does is good without referring back to God, necessarily. This is why it is not circular.

 

[Aaron11]

Circular reasoning means the premises and the conclusion depend on eachother to be valid. Words are abstract and symbollic representations of other things, ideas, and relationships between them. Eventually words go back to the thing or idea they represent, and not necessarily to the thing being evauated as corresponding to those other things or ideas. So, no, it really isn't circular like:

Whatever God does is good.
Therefore, those things are good because God did them.

This is circular.

You can have an independent definition of "good" which can be used to determine whether what God does is good without referring back to God, necessarily. This is why it is not circular.

I understand... However, the meaning of those words are described by other words that are described by other words, if not sooner then later it will become circular.

 

[tcampen]

I understand... However, the meaning of those words are described by other words that are described by other words, if not sooner then later it will become circular.

Ahhhhhhhhhh, I see what you mean now.

Can't I hold up a rock, point to it, and say "rock," and the circle ends? No additional words are needed. Eventually the word ends at the thing itself, requiring no more words at all.

Furthermore, words meanings based on other words an infinitum could never produce a meaningful language unless those words eventually lead to something eternal to those words. Go back to the rock example. It has to eventually end at the rock, or else the word itself would mean nothing at all. It would just be a sound, like "gubalotoo."

Gee, we're really stretching this thing, aren't we?

 

[zebuwin]

I can't believe I'm the first to tell you this, but Adam HAD knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the fruit! You can't say he was dumb and didn't know. Do you think he thought killing Eve was an option? Mocking God? Had he killed Eve, would you say it wouldn't have been bad because God didn't forbid it?

Now you'll say "but the bible say the fruit GAVE them knowledge of good and evil!". The word that is translated as "knowledge" here in the beginning of Genesis is the hebraic word "yada". Let me show you what Strong says about it:

a primitive root; to know (properly, to ascertain by seeing);
used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally,
euphemistically and inferentially (including observation,
care, recognition; and causatively, instruction, designation,
punishment, etc.) (as follow):--acknowledge, acquaintance(-ted
with), advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware,
(un-)awares, can(-not), certainly, comprehend, consider, X
could they, cunning, declare, be diligent, (can, cause to)
discern, discover, endued with, familiar friend, famous, feel,
can have, be (ig-)norant, instruct, kinsfolk, etc.

(I didn't put the whole text, it's long )

The fruit made them experiment good and evil. Acknowledge good and evil, comprehend good and evil. It was not just "oh yeah, I know that this is good and that that is bad, and such is ok, but not this...". It was more like "Oh! Now I know WHY this is bad, and WHY that is good...".

So Adam WASN'T innocent!

Now nakedness. Both Adam and Eve were naked, and were not ashamed of it, prior to the fall. But after eating the fruit of knowledge, they were on a different level, their perception had changed. Nakedness isn't bad in itself. If they now had FULL lnowledge of good and evil, they surely had to recognize God's pure goodness. They felt very poor in comparison. They saw they were frail, they could sin, and fear appeared for the first time in mankind's history. Probably they now could imagine themselves committing the worst sins (if there's such a thing ), seeing their partner could have arisen (?) impure thoughts, or they simply thought God deserved something better than two nude freaks to worship Him.

Ok, I'm done for the moment. Please forgive my grammar or my bad use of some words, but I'm still learning english (this post would have been much more detailed if it was a french-speaking forum )

May the Peace of Our Saviour be with you!

 

[Aaron11]

Ahhhhhhhhhh, I see what you mean now.

Can't I hold up a rock, point to it, and say "rock," and the circle ends? No additional words are needed. Eventually the word ends at the thing itself, requiring no more words at all.

Furthermore, words meanings based on other words an infinitum could never produce a meaningful language unless those words eventually lead to something eternal to those words. Go back to the rock example. It has to eventually end at the rock, or else the word itself would mean nothing at all. It would just be a sound, like "gubalotoo."

Gee, we're really stretching this thing, aren't we?

Yeah... I realize that it wasn't of that much practical value... but it had some sort of point, I think.

 

[Pastor_Benjamin]

The bible says their is nothing new under the sun that means that every sin that you could possible commit has already been commited.