Flirting with Sin

[Bubba_Switzler]

One of the most fundamental questions of the human condition for Christians is why God seemingly abandoned his creation to sin. Genesis instructs that this was mankind’s doing, the result of Original Sin. And, of course, Jesus is God’s attempt to rescue mankind from itself.

One of the greatest arguments for Atheism is the bare existence of evil. Why, atheists, ask, would a loving God create such a horrible world where death awaits us all with nasty sharp pointy teeth?

But perhaps there is something more fundamental at work which better explains both the story of Genesis and Jesus:

Perhaps people need to flirt with sin in order to develop morally. It’s all well and good for a wiser older person to advise youth on the folly of their ways but, to a large extent, experience is always the best teacher.

I’m not quite suggesting that God has set mankind up for failure, though that is a very tempting thought. Rather, God, in his loving way, understands that man must rebel first before learning to love back.

This would also go a long way toward explaining God’s hand’s off approach to his creation. While Catholics like to imagine God’s hand behind every turn of events, clearly God is not in our faces every day. Jesus came and went and left the Church behind. Jesus does not, himself, sit on the throne of St Peter.

In this way, God provides mankind with just enough space to develop morally.

 

[davidv]

One of the most fundamental questions of the human condition for Christians is why God seemingly abandoned his creation to sin. Genesis instructs that this was mankind’s doing, the result of Original Sin. And, of course, Jesus is God’s attempt to rescue mankind from itself.

One of the greatest arguments for Atheism is the bare existence of evil. Why, atheists, ask, would a loving God create such a horrible world where death awaits us all with nasty sharp pointy teeth?

But perhaps there is something more fundamental at work which better explains both the story of Genesis and Jesus:

Perhaps people need to flirt with sin in order to develop morally. It’s all well and good for a wiser older person to advise youth on the folly of their ways but, to a large extent, experience is always the best teacher.

I’m not quite suggesting that God has set mankind up for failure, though that is a very tempting thought. Rather, God, in his loving way, understands that man must rebel first before learning to love back.

This would also go a long way toward explaining God’s hand’s off approach to his creation. While Catholics like to imagine God’s hand behind every turn of events, clearly God is not in our faces every day. Jesus came and went and left the Church behind. Jesus does not, himself, sit on the throne of St Peter.

In this way, God provides mankind with just enough space to develop morally.

A few thoughts.
To assume that God has abandoned us to sin is to ignor much evidence to the contrary in both the OT and NT.

The greatest minds have been unable to solve the problem of evil for those who choose to disbelieve. For those that do believe is it simply something that must be overcome.

Flirting is not required. One need not touch a hot stove to know that to do so results in injury. Only those unwilling to learn from others insist in doing so. Experiences also kill. What has one learned then? Why should one then want to experience spiritual death through serious sin?

Rebelion is not a prerequisite of love. Several of my children are clear evidence for this.

You premise that God is “hands off” is faulty as it clearly ignors God’s involvement throughout salvation history.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

To assume that God has abandoned us to sin is to ignor much evidence to the contrary in both the OT and NT.

The word “abandon” is, perhaps, too strong. But the evidence is quite clear that God is more than willing to let mankind stew in his own juices. The evidence in both the OT and the NT (not to mention ordinary day to day observation) are quite clear on this.

The greatest minds have been unable to solve the problem of evil for those who choose to disbelieve. For those that do believe is it simply something that must be overcome.

Which is to say, faith is one way to solve this question. My purpose in this thread is to explore other options that might provide a more satisfying answer.

Flirting is not required. One need not touch a hot stove to know that to do so results in injury. Only those unwilling to learn from others insist in doing so. Experiences also kill. What has one learned then? Why should one then want to experience spiritual death through serious sin?

Yes, experience has its downside. But in order for me to learn from others mistakes (e.g. that host stoves burn) they must make those mistakes. Nobody learns 100% from instruction and even those who do will often test what they learn.

Rebelion is not a prerequisite of love. Several of my children are clear evidence for this.

I’m very curious how you managed to skip past that part where your children disobyed you. You should write a book on your parenting accomplishment as I have never known a parent who did not have to deal with that problem.

You premise that God is “hands off” is faulty as it clearly ignors God’s involvement throughout salvation history.

You are assuming here a false dichotomy. The fact that God stepped into history from time to time does not contradict the idea that he has a (generally) hand’s off attitude.

 

[scottywolf777]

The ultimate issue here is not “God abandoning us to sin” but, rather free will (sorry Mr. Calvin it does exist). God gave us the gift of free will it is ultimately up to us to figure out how to use it. God after all could make us obey Him without any recourse to us as automatons but, He gave us free will which means we have that all powerful word that every two year old learns, NO! The differences are in our choices, Do we choose God or sin/self/Satan and all his works, pomps etc.? Herein lies the difference between a Mother Teresa and an Adolph Hitler is that choice and it’s consequences and in the case of sin what you do afterwards. Do you lie in your own slop like a pig or do you repent and get cleaned up?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The ultimate issue here is not “God abandoning us to sin” but, rather free will (sorry Mr. Calvin it does exist). God gave us the gift of free will it is ultimately up to us to figure out how to use it. God after all could make us obey Him without any recourse to us as automatons but, He gave us free will which means we have that all powerful word that every two year old learns, NO! The differences are in our choices, Do we choose God or sin/self/Satan and all his works, pomps etc.? Herein lies the difference between a Mother Teresa and an Adolph Hitler is that choice and it’s consequences and in the case of sin what you do afterwards. Do you lie in your own slop like a pig or do you repent and get cleaned up?

Yes, precisely.

But I am suggesting something a step further: that moral development necessarliy entails learning to use free will which necessarily requires sin and therefore evil.

Or, to put it another way, could God have created sinless creatures with full moral responsibility? My claim is no.

 

[VociMike]

Or, to put it another way, could God have created sinless creatures with full moral responsibility? My claim is no.

Where does that leave the angels who did not sin? Where does that leave Mary? Where, in fact, does that leave God?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Where does that leave the angels who did not sin? Where does that leave Mary? Where, in fact, does that leave God?

God is the easiest case: God cannot disobey himself and God was not created so God is not a creature needing to develop morally.

The angels are an interesting case but there is really very little we know about them. But not all angels obeyed God, of course.

Mary is more of an enigma (assuming you hold to Immaculate Conception). But then the question is, if it’s so easy, why didn’t God create all of us as sinless as Mary?

 

[VociMike]

God is the easiest case: God cannot disobey himself and God was not created so God is not a creature needing to develop morally.

Be we are created in his image and likeness, which includes our existence as moral beings. If God can be without sin and yet be fully morally responsible, why do you think that is not possible for us?

The angels are an interesting case but there is really very little we know about them. But not all angels obeyed God, of course.

Right, but you seem to be saying that those who did not sin are not fully morally responsible.

Mary is more of an enigma (assuming you hold to Immaculate Conception). But then the question is, if it’s so easy, why didn’t God create all of us as sinless as Mary?

Well we have the example of Adam and Eve that shows that it does not necessarily make any difference.

 

[davidv]

The word “abandon” is, perhaps, too strong. But the evidence is quite clear that God is more than willing to let mankind stew in his own juices. The evidence in both the OT and the NT (not to mention ordinary day to day observation) are quite clear on this.

Which is to say, faith is one way to solve this question. My purpose in this thread is to explore other options that might provide a more satisfying answer.

Yes, experience has its downside. But in order for me to learn from others mistakes (e.g. that host stoves burn) they must make those mistakes. Nobody learns 100% from instruction and even those who do will often test what they learn.

I’m very curious how you managed to skip past that part where your children disobyed you. You should write a book on your parenting accomplishment as I have never known a parent who did not have to deal with that problem.

I don’t equate disobedience to rebellion. Of the six I do have one who is in fact in rebellion.

You are assuming here a false dichotomy. The fact that God stepped into history from time to time does not contradict the idea that he has a (generally) hand’s off attitude.

A “hands off” God would not send His Son to redeem us from the slavery of sin that we put ourselves in.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Be we are created in his image and likeness, which includes our existence as moral beings. If God can be without sin and yet be fully morally responsible, why do you think that is not possible for us?

I think you are equivocating on the meaning of “moral” here “morally responsible”. It’s important to distinguish between the capacity and the responsibility for one’s choices and making correct (i.e. moreal) choices. Clearly, in creating makind in his image, God did not create mankind in the later since of moral beings. More importantly, I think you are passing too quickly by the possibility that creation is ongoing. In other words, that the world is the way it is as a fact of God’s creating process.

Right, but you seem to be saying that those who did not sin are not fully morally responsible.

I don’t claim to know enough about angels to take them into account, one certainly will not find much about them in the Bible other than that they are messengers of God. But tradition holds that some angels did make a bad choice to disobey God.

Well we have the example of Adam and Eve that shows that it does not necessarily make any difference.

Good point.