Discussion on Original Sin theme continued from: "to Mr Moss (WAS: Guilt By Accusation Is Not Guilt)"
http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... php?t=5159
Posted: Mon 10 October 2005 11:51 am Post subject:
Justin Kissel
Saying that he didn't know good from evil, while generally true, is not precise.
It's perfectly precise. The tree was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, before eating they didn't have knowledge of good and evil.
Genesis tells us that God did give Adam and Eve a command, and that they suffered consequences when they disobeyed that command. The idea that there is no original sin is simply untenable;
God didn't tell Adam that it was a sin to disobey His command.
They didn't suffer the consequences because they disobeyed His command, they suffered the consequences of eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
On the contrary it's your claim that there is original sin that is, so far, untenable.
from the Scripture onwards the belief is firmly in place.
Whose interpretation of Scripture? There's no mention of "original sin" in the Old Testament or Jewish writings and didn't come into Judaism until some time after the return from the Babylonian exile. [Lewis Loflin ]
So that leaves two choices: either 1) God is very cruel and unjust, and punishes people for things that they could not possibly avoid,
You're mixing up consequence with the idea of punishment, as did Augustine. Disobedience in itself is not a sin or there is no free will. That would make a cruel God, one who only pretends to create us with free will because he punishes us for disobedience...
or 2) Adam and Eve did not understand the finer points of morality ("good and evil") but did have enough of an understanding to know that you should obey God when he tells you something.
They didn't understand any points of morality before eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
How did they 'have enough understanding' to obey God when He tells you [to do] something'?
They were completely ignorant of consequences of their acts and moreover, ignorant of whether the command came from someone good or evil.
In essence, they might have only known a single moral truth, but that single moral truth is what God tested them by, and they failed the test.
They didn't know any moral truth before eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Orthodox teaching is the we're created with free will. Let's turn this around a little, we could say that was the first test in the exercise of free will, the beginning of wisdom of knowing in whose image and likeness they were created. They chose to disobey, or rather Adam chose to disobey, Eve hadn't been given that command, Adam didn't choose to obey.
Orthodox anthropology teaches that Adam and Eve were immature in the Garden of Eden, that they had to "grow in grace" (as Peter says). They started that process, but before God could bring them along and teach them about "good and evil" himself, they derailed everything with their disobedience.
How were they going to learn about good and evil without eating from the tree of knowlege of it?
The situation might be compared to a young child killing a cat with an axe. Maybe the child doesn't understand the finer points of morality when it comes to many, many things, and the parents defend him "but he's just a child, he doesn't know any better!" Yet, the courts might decide (rightly) that he should have at least been expected to have enough of an understanding of morality to avoid something so far out there.
A child doesn't take confession before the 'age of reason' in the Orthodox Church. The courts take age very much into consideration even for acts of murder by a child.
Myrrh