Origin of sin

@caesar-salad said
God did it. End of story.

You add only slightly more value to this forum than sonhouse.

So basically, none.

@divegeester said
You seem to be conflating and confusing “Innocence” with ignorance and even nativity. There is no evidence of this I’m scripture, you are speculating.

What the scripture does say, quite clearly, is that they were ashamed and hid. They would not be ashamed beforehand, so yes, afterward is the correct tense.

I'm not debating the point that after they ate the fruit they were ashamed and hid. What I'm saying is that they were both innocent 'beforehand', and due to that innocence did likely NOT realize what the consequences would be. How could they have known what God meant? Death was unknown to them.

So in a naive state of mind is when the serpent (satan) deceived them. I don't feel that the 'free will' argument applies until *after* their eyes were opened.

@chaney3 said
I'm not debating the point that after they ate the fruit they were ashamed and hid. What I'm saying is that they were both innocent 'beforehand', and due to that innocence did likely NOT realize what the consequences would be. How could they have known what God meant? Death was unknown to them.

So in a naive state of mind is when the serpent (satan) deceived them. I don't feel that the 'free will' argument applies until *after* their eyes were opened.

It's an allegorical story written tens of thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of years after the "event" it is supposedly depicting by people who were not there but who were seeking to explain the human condition ~ i.e. immoral and or anti-social behaviour ~ as they saw it and the role of the particular God they worshipped in supposedly setting rules for their relationship with him.

It is storytelling that is about as speculative, imagination-based and as mythological as one could possibly come up with. Cultures all around the world engaged in this all the way down through the history of mankind.

Picking it apart, naming people, analyzing who said what to who, and what happened as a consequence, is an exercise in scrutinizing the ancient Hebrew mindset and the folklore it projected onto the prehistoric past at best, and nothing else. There is not a credible reason in the world to think that the story is a chapter in human history or that its details relate to any events or conversations that ever actually happened.

@fmf said
It's an allegorical story written tens of thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of years after the "event" it is supposedly depicting by people who were not there but who were seeking to explain the human condition ~ i.e. immoral and or anti-social behaviour ~ as they saw it and the role of the particular God they worshipped in supposedly setting rules for their relationship ...[text shortened]... human history or that its details relate to any events or conversations that ever actually happened.

This "story / event" is regarded by many as the starting point for the necessity of a Savior. The requirement of Jesus to make the ultimate sacrifice begins, technically, with Eve eating the fruit.

If one questions the validity of this particular story, then when does Jesus become necessary?

Suzianne stated earlier that "sin" in general is why Jesus was needed, but that is a modern analysis which assumes an origin of sin, in which God requires *payment*.

@chaney3 said
This "story / event" is regarded by many as the starting point for the necessity of a Savior. The requirement of Jesus to make the ultimate sacrifice begins, technically, with Eve eating the fruit.

If one questions the validity of this particular story, then when does Jesus become necessary?

Suzianne stated earlier that "sin" in general is why Jesus was needed, but that is a modern analysis which assumes an origin of sin, in which God requires *payment*.

It's obviously an allegory written by people maybe hundreds of thousands of years after human beings started recognizing the moral dimension of their interactions ["sinning", good, "evil"]. So this allegory is about supposed events in prehistoric times and is, for all intents and purposes, ancient peoples contemplating their communal navel. If you do not bear that in mind, then you are in the realm of counting angels on the head of a pin.

@chaney3 said
If one questions the origin of sin, or dismisses it as a metaphor, then the necessity for a Savior could also be questioned.

Agreed.

If one does not buy into the narrative about the origin of "sin", then the relevance of - and the necessity for - a narrative about "a Savior" also does not really have any traction.

"Sin" ~ which I believe only certainly exists in the minds of theists ~ is the framing of human morality ~ the need for which certainly does exist in almost everyone's mind ~ as having a supernatural dimension.

@chaney3 said
If one questions the validity of this particular story, then when does Jesus become necessary?

Who, in the circumstance you are describing above, does claim that Jesus is "necessary"? The "one" you mention in your question above is people like me, right?

@suzianne said
One does not need to "question the origin of sin" to understand that sin exists in the world, or that man requires a savior from the sin that pervades society.

@suzianne said
[1] One does not need to "question the origin of sin"

[2] to understand that sin exists in the world, or that...

The "question [regarding] the origin of sin" is fundamental to the question of whether or not "sin exists in the world" [where "sin" is defined in the way chaney3 has defined it]

[3] ...man requires a savior from the sin that pervades society.

This assertion [3] appears to be based on [1] and [2]... where [1] asserts that one doesn't need to know where "sin" comes from [the topic of the thread, lest we forget] and then [2] asserts that one must simply accept that it does.

It sounds like [1] [2] [3] amounts to you not wanting to discuss the question chaney3 has raised.

@chaney3 said
Adam was likely not well equipped to understand the consequences of eating the fruit. When God said "you will die", Adam didn't have any reference point to know what that meant.

All Adam had to know was that God told him not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

He chose to eat of it. He chose to disobey. Why God told him not to eat of it doesn't enter into it.

@divegeester said
I’ve posted, flowered this before....

Q. What would have happened to Eve if Adam had refused the fruit?

A. The same thing that would have happened to the human race if Jesus had not become the serpent on the stake.

The difference of course being that Adam chose to disobey, Jesus chose to obey.

A choice faced by us all.

@divegeester said
It is quite clear from what is written that both Adam and Eve knew exactly what they were doing. They hid from God afterwards, they were ashamed and tried to cover their own sin with by their own efforts.

However, the fruit was of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and so the argument could be made they did not realize if what they did was good or bad.

I agree with you, however. All they needed to know was that God told them not to, and they chose to anyways.

@fmf said
@suzianne said
[1] One does not need to "question the origin of sin"

[2] to understand that sin exists in the world, or that...

The "question [regarding] the origin of sin" is fundamental to the question of whether or not "sin exists in the world" [where "sin" is defined in the way chaney3 has defined it]

[3] ...man requires a savior from the s ...[text shortened]... ounds like [b][1] [2] [3] amounts to you not wanting to discuss the question chaney3 has raised.

This post comes from someone who conveniently does not believe in sin, so, yeah...

I conveniently don't believe answering it is worth the time it took for you to write it. As someone else once said, "I do not recognize your authority to judge me." So, "sorry-not-sorry".

@divegeester said
You seem to be conflating and confusing “Innocence” with ignorance and even nativity. There is no evidence of this I’m scripture, you are speculating.

What the scripture does say, quite clearly, is that they were ashamed and hid. They would not be ashamed beforehand, so yes, afterward is the correct tense.

I assume you mean: naiveté. I agree.

@suzianne said
I conveniently don't believe answering it is worth the time it took for you to write it. As someone else once said, "I do not recognize your authority to judge me." So, "sorry-not-sorry".

I have no problem with the time I spent writing it. And, what I did write, along with your inability to answer, is part of the discourse.

@suzianne said
This post comes from someone who conveniently does not believe in sin, so, yeah...

chaney3 has chosen to make this aspect a part of his topic/question. He mentions it in the OP and then reiterates it on page 2.