23 Apr 12
Originally posted by JS357You are mistakenly trying to make yourself God.
With all due respect, I am telling my story, not anyone else's, except by coincidence. I would say that "God" in the story you relate, is "the group" or "the greater good" in mine. In your last sentence, the greater good and mankind become synonymous, which is cool by me.
The "universal sovereignty" of mankind, and equivalently of God, is in the broadest se ...[text shortened]... iving in the wild, to living in the tribe. This was the enshrinement of morality.
23 Apr 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieI am pretty sure a snake that appeared to be talking and reasoning with me would jolt
a dog is not an auto bot but it is only capable of thinking things that its dogs brain will allow it. you can only think something that the brain is designed to allow you to think. if you were given the freedom to do anything you could think of. you would just think of normal stuff nothing new would spring into your head that no human has ever come close to thinking because you are confined to the brain and what it will let you think.
me out of my normal humdrum, dont you think?
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieReading from Watchman Nee on The Blood of Christ -
i might be being a bit slow here as this has just dawned on me, is original sin all about sex. was the fruit a metaphor for humping?
i vaguely remember phillip pullman talking about original sin and sex in the 3rd part of his dark materials trilogy. i read it about 15 years ago and didnt really think about it. is sex the sin that god didnt want doing ...[text shortened]... us didnt do it, is that why lots of priest pretend they dont do it, is that why nuns dont do it?
&feature=related
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieno, you would be suprised. but your reactions would all be dictated by what your brain is capable of thinking. this is getting rather circular.
I am pretty sure a snake that appeared to be talking and reasoning with me would jolt
me out of my normal humdrum, dont you think?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
24 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillin the video the guy says that no matter what we do in life we always have the seed of sin within us, it is passed down the line from parent to child.
Reading from Watchman Nee on The Blood of Christ -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xOyjSNrey0&feature=related
surely if this is how it works, god passed the seed to adam.
25 Apr 12
Originally posted by stellspalfie
in the video the guy says that no matter what we do in life we always have the seed of sin within us, it is passed down the line from parent to child.
surely if this is how it works, god passed the seed to adam.
in the video the guy says that no matter what we do in life we always have the seed of sin within us, it is passed down the line from parent to child.
surely if this is how it works, god passed the seed to adam.
Without reviewing the video, let me just respond to your comment above.
I have thought about this for a long long time. At this present time I am convinced that what happened to man happened to him from the time Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Now, I don't understand everything about this. But it seems that from the time Adam ate of that fruit the sin nature came into man.
Whatever Adam did before the eating was still in the realm of his neutrality and innocence. The eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a "line in the sand" so to speak, that he was not to cross.
Once he ATE of it, something or someone gained some kind of cosmic evil control over his very being.
That TREE with its fruit represented something that he was not to take into himself. When he ate, that negative something entered into Adam's being. So the "seed" as you say came from Adam's disobedience and eating of the fruit.
Long, I tried to understand this on a purely mythical basis. Eventually, from reading carefully Romans chapter 7 and other portions of the New Testament, I had to surrender to the conclusion that Genesis must mean what it says.
The good news is the Christ, as the second man, the last Adam, is in a sense the ORIGINAL RIGHTEOUSNESS to counteract the Original Sin.
The same principle that worked AGAINST man in the disobedient Adam, God uses to work FOR man in the OBEDIENT Christ - the second man.
This reflective principle is discussed mainly in Romans chapter 5.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
25 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillnice to get an in depth answer to the question, ive asked it a few times on here without a decent response. although it opens the question why did god make the fruit in such a way it could pass on the seed of sin. its still a big step forward from the usual 'adam was bad because he had freewill' answer.
in the video the guy says that no matter what we do in life we always have the seed of sin within us, it is passed down the line from parent to child.
surely if this is how it works, god passed the seed to adam.
Without reviewing the video, let me just respond to your comment above.
I have thought about this for a long long ti ...[text shortened]... second man.
This reflective principle is discussed mainly in [b]Romans chapter 5.[/b]
i wish the rest of the christians on here would take a leaf out of your book, you always try to back up what you believe and i cant help but respect that (despite the hours of youtube videos i have to watch!!!)
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
26 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywill"Long, I tried to understand this on a purely mythical basis."
in the video the guy says that no matter what we do in life we always have the seed of sin within us, it is passed down the line from parent to child.
surely if this is how it works, god passed the seed to adam.
Without reviewing the video, let me just respond to your comment above.
I have thought about this for a long long ti ...[text shortened]... second man.
This reflective principle is discussed mainly in [b]Romans chapter 5.[/b]
How you use the word "mythical" or "myth" is critical to understanding what you mean here.
Dictionary.com has as the first definition,"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature".
Careful readings of the words "traditional" and "legendary" need to be made, to recognize that they do not necessarily mean "false."
The "phenomenon of nature" in this case, might be our sense that there are actions and situations that are right or wrong, that we should or should not do or allow.
Is this more or less what you mean? If so, I think you actually are reading the text of Genesis on original sin, as myth.
26 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillI have often wondered about this particular extract from the Eden story; it seems that God would have preferred mankind to be 'amoral' rather than; 'moral' as opposed to 'immoral', which would not clash with JS357s interpretation:-
I have thought about this for a long long time. At this present time I am convinced that what happened to man happened to him from the time (Adam ate of the tree of the (knowledge) of good and evil.)
my parenthesis.
Now, I don't understand everything about this. But it seems that from the time Adam ate of that fruit the sin nature came into man.
"The Eden story tells of that tragic time when humans become aware that we have to control our natural individualistic instincts and obey man-made rules in order to have the benefits of living in a social group."
26 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by JS357
"Long, I tried to understand this on a purely mythical basis."
How you use the word "mythical" or "myth" is critical to understanding what you mean here.
Dictionary.com has as the first definition,"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, espec , I think you actually are reading the text of Genesis on original sin, as myth.
"Long, I tried to understand this on a purely mythical basis."
How you use the word "mythical" or "myth" is critical to understanding what you mean here.
Dictionary.com has as the first definition,"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature".
Careful readings of the words "traditional" and "legendary" need to be made, to recognize that they do not necessarily mean "false."
I think that I have heard before the the word "myth" may or may not mean actually an historical matter.
I meant that my first inclination was to not regard the story of Adam and his wife between two trees - the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as an historical event.
I suppose I regarded allegorical and historical as a strict dichotomy. I changed my view latter that an actual historical event also can be allegorical according to something God wants to reveal to man.
The "phenomenon of nature" in this case, might be our sense that there are actions and situations that are right or wrong, that we should or should not do or allow.
Is this more or less what you mean? If so, I think you actually are reading the text of Genesis on original sin, as myth.
I think you would have to explain a little more to me what you mean by these last two sentences.
I only use the phrase "original sin" to communicate to the person who takes the initiative to use it in discussion with me. The phrase "original sin" never comes up in my theological speaking initiated by me.
There are traditional phrases that others have used that I never have seen the need to use. I may think of them as a bit misleading or inadaquate to the level of understanding I think I have of the divine revelation.
Then there are other theological phrases which I do retain, that may not be in the Bible. But for one reason or another, I think they are pretty good expressions.
I have never warmed up to the phrase "original sin". I may not count it as completely wrong. But I find it perhaps misleading. Before Adam sinned, Satan who tempted Adam sinned. I guess the real "original sin" is that which was done by Satan.
Maybe this has nothing to do with what you're asking. I read the text of Genesis as an exposure of the basic problem between the created man and God. Man stepped out from under the direct authority of God, and joined the opposition party already in existence in opposition to God.
The choice was presented to man. Man was innocent and in a neutral position between God and Satan, God's enemy. This was a triangular situation in the universe.
At one point of the triangle was God signified in "the tree of life". And at the other point of the triangle was Satan represented by "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". At the third point of the triangle between God and Satan was the created man.
Man was not created in need of forgiveness.
Man was not created in need of redemption.
Man was created under the direct authority of God yet presented with a choice to deepen that relationship or to withdraw from it.
When I mused about this, I thought "How could such a profound matter be wrapped up in two TREES ?" It seemed like a child's story, as other things in the Bible seemed to me as child's stories.
Eventually, I realized that often we humans mistake God's simplicity for naivete. God in His wisdom has His way to communicate to man down through the ages, in terms that the most people can grasp, profound truths.
I do believe that I am reading history arranged by God with a future view to communicate truths of His eternal purpose to the maximal amount of human cultures.
The fact of the matter is that elsewhere God assigned deep meaning to physical objects. The ark of the covenant is the most striking example to come to mind. A man was killed because of the unprescribed manner in which he touched the ark of the covenant.
Temporarily then, God actually assigned allegorical significance to physical objects. I stress temporarily. And temporarily it could be a life and death situation as to how the Israelites interacted with that physical object. The ark of the covenant is one example. The brass serpent lifted up by Moses in the wilderness is another.
If God would and could do that with the ark of the covenant and the brass serpent, I see no reason why He would and could not do so with two trees in Genesis.
God's purpose was to enter into Adam had he eaten of the tree of life. Man's curse commenced when the Satanic nature entered into him upon his eating of the other tree - "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".
Adam was innocent and neutral up until the moment he made the choice to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And the human race has somehow been poisoned - Satanified, ever since.
The tree of life on the other hand is now available to man in the person of Jesus Christ the Son of God. And His redemptive death has removed the terrible barrier to divine life that God erected the moment man had become aligned with the Devil.
"And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil, and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever -
Therefore Jehovah God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to work the ground from which he was taken.
So He drove the man out, and at the east of the garden of Eden He plaved the cherubim and a flaming sword which turned in every direction to guard the way to the tree of life." (Gen. 3:22-24)
After man is infested with the paristic evil nature of Satan, the previously innocent and neutral man now has God erect a terrible barrier between Himself and man. That is a threefold demand.
Man is fallen short of the righteousness of God.
Man is fallen short of the holiness of God.
Man is fallen short of the glory of God.
The sword, I believe, signifies God's righteousness.
The flame of the sword corresponds to God's holiness.
The cherubim of glory corresponds to the glory of God.
The threefold demand of God upon the fallen man are met only in the redemptive life, death and resurrection of the Son of God - Jesus Christ.