On the justice of original sin

[HarryStotle]

“Vacous set of rhetorical gibes” is exactly what atheists call religion. Strange of you to use that term

Those that do are fatuous rhetoricians, themselves.

Atheists who are to be taken seriously would never refer to religion in that way.

The fact that you appear to esteem the worst of lot doesn’t help the case you are attempting to make.

 

[RedFan]

RedFan:

Why are we assuming that physical death is somehow a “punishment?”

I see it more as a consequence that we were forewarned of.

I don’t. When God, in that wonderful allegorical story recounted in Genesis 2, told Adam that "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die,” I think He meant spiritual rather than physical death. I say this not only because Adam didn’t die physically on that day, but because I see nothing in Genesis suggesting that Adam and Eve were created physically immortal to begin with.

Interpreting “in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” as meaning “in the day that you eat of it you shall surely become physically mortal and forfeit your physical immortality” just tortures the text beyond any level that I am prepared to accept.

 

[Curious11]

I don’t know where you get the claim that I admire them when all I want is to do all I can to not become one, if God bothers to help me.

Lack of evidence makes a stronger case for my claim than anything else in this world

 

[Cruciferi]

So, you want God to do everything for you?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

And biology being as it is, some characteristics are inheritable and all crimes create moral fallout within the human condition

Are you suggesting that criminal behavior is a genetic trait?

Nope. Never entered my mind. Behaviour is not genetically fixed. We have free will and grace.

Proclivities, however, could be genetically based – at least some might be.

If original sin is passed on generationally, what mechanism for that to occur would you propose, besides genetics or epigenetics?

 

[Curious11]

What I want is, at the very least, for Him to explain why He’s created this crappy sinful world and then sacrificed Himself to Himself to “fulfill” a law that existed for obscure reasons, rather than bring us to paradise

 

[Benadam]

I don’t. When God, in that wonderful allegorical story recounted in Genesis 2, told Adam that "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die,” I think He meant spiritual rather than physical death.

But our souls don’t die. Our bodies die. We still have immortal souls with mortal bodies. It’s just now our bodies obey the law that comes with bodies that die. Our will that wants to obey law that pertains to immortal life is over ruled by a body with another law. Paul spells it out.

Romans 7
14 For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin.[c] 15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 17 But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.

21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, 23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin.

 

[RedFan]

Proclivities, however, could be genetically based – at least some might be.

If original sin is passed on generationally, what mechanism for that to occur would you propose, besides genetics or epigenetics?

I have no reason to assume that proclivities toward evil might be genetically based. That is a separate matter from inheriting original sin as part of the human condition. As I understand it, original sin is not a proclivity toward evil, but a condition of being out of God’s favor from the moment of one’s birth due to ancestral disobedience. Genetics need not enter into it.

 

[RedFan]

By spiritual death I did not mean extinguishment of our soul’s existence, but rather our soul’s separation from God.

 

[Benadam]

By spiritual death I did not mean extinguishment of our soul’s existence, but rather our soul’s separation from God.

Ok, that makes sense. I agree, the immortal soul separated from life.

 

[Benadam]

What I want is, at the very least, for Him to explain why He’s created this crappy sinful world and then sacrificed Himself to Himself to “fulfill” a law that existed for obscure reasons, rather than bring us to paradise

God created a world that submission to us was proper to it. The sensitive powers of the soul submitted to the intellect. So those same sensitive powers of the souls and bodies of animals were submissive to us. The powers of nature submitted to man. The sensitive powers of our soul dominate because the object of our will is the good according to the judgement of the senses.Instead of the object of our will being the good according to the judgement of our intellect. Simply put we continue to choose the good that pleases the senses rather than the good that pleases the intellect.

The Law of the senses is: If it feels good do it. The will is slave to this law.

The law of the intellect: Do what ought to be done. True freedom of the will when this is obeyed.

As for suffering, Jesus brought value to suffering that sin causes by making it redemptive. In Him our suffering can save us and others…

Ultimately Love requires freedom. Freeing us from the slavery of sin requires love. Love requires freedom.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Proclivities, however, could be genetically based – at least some might be.

If original sin is passed on generationally, what mechanism for that to occur would you propose, besides genetics or epigenetics?

I have no reason to assume that proclivities toward evil might be genetically based. That is a separate matter from inheriting original sin as part of the human condition. As I understand it, original sin is not a proclivity toward evil, but a condition of being out of God’s favor from the moment of one’s birth due to ancestral disobedience. Genetics need not enter into it.

I never claimed they were proclivities toward evil necessarily. The condition is one of disorder in human nature. If that disorder is real, in any sense, it has to be grounded in what constitutes human nature. What would the nature of the condition be if it isn’t grounded in what constitutes the reality of human existence? You aren’t claiming some special, spiritual, “tag” of some sort that reminds God that we are out of favour with him, are you? Seems a tad ad hoc, no?

 

[RedFan]

Harry, I am only saying that original sin is a human condition but not a genetic one. It is not transmitted by DNA. It would have to be a physical condition in order to be genetically transmitted. And it’s not physical. To say that original sin is part of human nature is different from saying it is genetically transmitted.

I also hesitate to call original sin a “disorder in human nature.” That’s almost an oxymoron. How can something automatic be unnatural? God has chosen to tag us with ancestral sin – OK, I may find that unjust but I accept it is His prerogative to so tag us – as part of our divinely-created “nature.” Sure, being separated from God is not the best outcome, but it is the outcome He ordained through no fault of our own (pre-salvation through Christ, at least!), and in that sense is a “natural” outcome. What God ordains for all humankind must be “natural.”

 

[Curious11]

But ALL of that is like that for one unique reason: because God wants it to. He complicates the world because He wants to.

That’s unacceptable, especially when he demands we die for him and disregard everything else for him if he asks it.

I’m gonna turn my back on him until he gives me a good reason not to. If he wanted me to remain a slave and a non-questioning servant, the fact that he gave me reason is puzzling, as is most of what he does.

He’s made a poor case all these years, I’m not gonna put up with him any more unless he changes his deal to something that truly makes him deserve the adjective “good”

 

[HarryStotle]

Lack of evidence makes a stronger case for my claim than anything else in this world

Evidence or the lack of it depends entirely upon the perspective and limitations of the one looking for evidence.

A lack of evidence makes a case for exactly nothing, unless you know for certain (and not just assume, like you do) that that something would reveal a specific piece of evidence.

The best evidence for something might just be in front of our eyes but we cannot see it because we do not recognize its significance as evidence.

That spot on my skin might be evidence of cancer, but if I know nothing about cancer, I have no idea that the spot is evidence for cancer.

In other words, you have to have a relatively complete understanding of the scenario in order to know what specific evidence within your view is significant, is relevant, or is at all to be considered.

You would need to have a complete and accurate grasp, not just of the observables in the universe, but of the underlying metaphysics of it to have any sense at all regarding what counts as good evidence for God’s existence.

Science is about describing the observables and the patterns found there mathematically speaking. Science describes what happens with some consistency. It doesn’t get at the how (metaphysics) very much at all.

Science tells us that a force called gravity exists, that it has certain effects on the observable world, that those effects can be consistently described. But science doesn’t tell us how or why there is gravity. It might claim gravity is fundamental or ubiquitous, but it doesn’t get at how it is that gravity does exist in the universe or why it applies universally. To have any sense of that science would have to have worked out the metaphysics or ultimate explanation for everything, and then explicate the role of gravity within that. Science is not helpful, therefore, in what is or is not “evidence” for God.

So your claim concerning a “lack of evidence,” is simply a statement that you don’t see any evidence. So what? That claim says more about you and your inabilities to recognize evidence than it implies about God’s existence.

 

[Bon_Croix]

Is it just that a sinless man suffered for us?

 

[HarryStotle]

He’s made a poor case all these years, I’m not gonna put up with him any more unless he changes his deal to something that truly makes him deserve the adjective “good”

And thus speaketh the slug to Einstein: "You have made a poor case for general relativity all these years. It is incomprehensible rubbish. I’m not gonna put up with your work any more unless you change your dealings to something that makes sense to my brilliant slug mind. Only then will your work truly make you deserve the adjective “good” as far as your physics is concerned. You cannot even explain to my satisfaction why I am relegated to move about on this carpet of slime all of the time. You, Einstein, are hopeless!

 

[HarryStotle]

Is it just that a sinless man suffered for us?

It is infinitely unjust, in a manner of speaking, but that is the nature of God’s “injustice.”

 

[Curious11]

No it doesn’t say more about me than God.

Already it tells me something extremely important: God is not powerful enough or He does not care enough about me to tell me what’s his deal.

We always come back to the same thing: burden of proof is on the one claiming God did it. Science might not explain everything, that doesn’t mean God did it.

 

[HarryStotle]

No it doesn’t say more about me than God.

Already it tells me something extremely important: God is not powerful enough or He does not care enough about me to tell me what’s his deal.

Well, that would be one way to “read” the evidence, but unfortunately for your thesis it isn’t the only way. The fact that you have a vested interest (bias actually) for seeing things that way ought to make any reasonable person question your skewed reading of the evidence.

The fact that you are completely resistant to considering any other possible reading of the evidence is, itself, evidence that you are very likely mistaken. Cognitive bias is fully in play.

If God exists, why do so many people doubt? Apologetics

Well, no actually. Merely because evidence on its own doesn’t serve as proof, does not mean there are no proofs. You are confusing evidence with proof. There are rational proofs of God’s existence. Those don’t rely on evidence as such. They rely on self-evident premises. If the premises are true, then the conclusion “God exists” follows logically, not evidentially. The difficulty is that accepting the premises depends entirely upon the rational competency of the individual considering the pr…