Original Sin? Need Explanation

[dayaa]

hi bandit i'm back, just briefly...interesting thread.
hi jibran and welcome. any relation to jibran khalil jibran? i love his books.
some interesting ideas in this thread about human nature, the nature and purpose of sin etc. saltmeister's comments gave some food for thought. it's quite interesting actually that sinning does tend to make one more compassionate, less self-righteous. jibran khalil jibran has an interesting story about the priest and the satan which explains good as only relevant in relation to evil....a question of balance. maybe there is purpose in sin . i shall be popping back to see how this thread progresses see you soon.

 

[Jibran]

Hi Saltmeister

Yes, your reply helped me in my understanding of under discussed Christian view yet your asnwer raises some important questions in the mind.

Every human being has instincts. Instincts are part of our human nature. Instincts are things we can do naturally. They are things we are capable of doing once we choose to do them. Instincts include things like love, kindness, generosity, humility, hatred, arrogance, greed, selfishness, lust, etc.

Adam had free will without evil instincts before eating the fruit. Adam had free will with the possibility of choosing and following his evil instincts after eating the fruit. God made us perfectly capable of doing only good by following our instincts but Adam chose to be capable of evil.

Firstly, we have to define human nature, instincts and free will. You wrote that instincts include love, kindness, generosity, humility, hatred, arrogance, greed, selfishness, lust, etc. (in short, good and bad) and we are capable of doing if we choose to do them. This set of instincts constitutes human nature we are familiar with.

Now, it appears that the "human nature" of Adam, his "instincts" and "behavioural tendencies" were different from that of us before eating the fruit. It means that God had created Adam with the instincts and nature different from that what human beings carry. It further looks that God had given limited free will to Adam perfectly capable of doing only good and it was because of eating the fruit that he acquired the capability to sin due to which his childern inherited the "capabilty to sin", otherwise we humans would have done "good" only.

Thus, primarily, God had created the first pair of humans with a "limited free will" with the capability to choose between good things only and, it was very different from what we humans have now. God did not want humans to have a free will of either choosing good or bad. If this is so, how can we differentiate between angels and humans? What made angels not to acquire the capability to do sin?

Sin doesn't just refer to a record of wrongdoing, but also a capability to sin. In other words, being born capable of sin means we are not sinless. The reason is that sin is living inside us.

So what if a person never sins even though there is evil in him? Good for him. Evil being part of human nature still makes it possible for people to sin. A person who has been perfectly good all his life but then starts to sin is worse then someone who is reckless at first and then turns a new leaf.

When I say "sinless", it means to me a state in which a human being is born. A new born has not done any bad (he is not a sinner). Similarly he has not done any good either (he is not a pious). It means he is born "pure" or in other words "in a neutral state". Since new born has a human nature, he can choose to do good or bad in his future life. His capability to sin is the manifestation of his "full free will" .It doesn't mean he is "born with sin".

What was the point of being good in the first place? A person who never sins despite having evil in him is just as bad as everyone else. He is still capable of evil. What everybody needs, despite how good they are, is to be cleansed of evil from within. People who have been good all their lives can easily turn the other way and start sinning uncontrollaby. It happens all the time. We grieve at what they have become. The people they used to be are no longer. They are now just as sick as us.

I really dont think that a person who never sins despite having the capability to sin is as bad as the one who frequently sins. It seems that we humans were put in such a terrible position by Adam who "acquired the capabilty to sin". It is not our fault at all. It also seems that if in God's eye, an "evil-doer" is equal to that of a "pious with the capability to sin", the Justice of God becomes doubtful.

God's creation was perfect. The sin we have now was not part of God's creation. We cannot remove this evil by trying to be righteous. It doesn't matter how righteous you are, you are still capable of evil. If you try to be righteous while still having evil in you, that is an insult to God because God created you to be perfect in conduct.

Is it wrong for God to make you perfect in conduct?

No it is certainly not wrong for God to make us perfect in conduct. But if we assume that being "perfect in conduct" means that we only have the capability to do good but not the opposite, then such a creation should be classified anywhere between Angels and Human beings because, i think, that it is the very notion of free will resulting in the capability to do either good or bad that makes us human beings.

I think that we can insult God by not following his commands and by going on the way of Satan.

Anyways I thank you for explaining the Christian point of view with utmost clarity.

Note: I tried to speak my mind in the best possible language I know. Since english is not my first language , So sorry for any errors in the post.

Jibran

 

[Jibran]

hi bandit i'm back, just briefly...interesting thread.
hi jibran and welcome. any relation to jibran khalil jibran? i love his books.
some interesting ideas in this thread about human nature, the nature and purpose of sin etc. saltmeister's comments gave some food for thought. it's quite interesting actually that sinning does tend to make one more compassionate, less self-righteous. jibran khalil jibran has an interesting story about the priest and the satan which explains good as only relevant in relation to evil....a question of balance. maybe there is purpose in sin . i shall be popping back to see how this thread progresses see you soon.

Hello dayaa,

Thanks for welcoming me The relation between me and Jibran Khalil Jibran is only of name. My dad chose this name because he was inspired by Jibran Khalil Jibran. It really nice to know that you love his books. I'm also one of Khalil's fan. Just love his writings.

I vaguely remember the story by J.K.J which you have mentioned. I had read it about 3-4 years back in a book. I agree that good can only be relevent in relation to evil. Without "evil", the essence and positiveness of "good" is meaningless. For example: we can only admire a truth, if we know the meaning of a lie. We can only cultivate honesty, if we know what dishonety means. Psychologically speaking, we can only understand the blessing of food, when we experience starvation. And religiously speaking, we can only understand good, if we experience the bad. It is the very nature of the human beings that makes us human beings. Otherwise, there would have been a totally different creation of God in this world.

Thanks for your comments.

Jibran

 

[mee]

Yes it does seem so!

Romans 5:19 "By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners." (The New Jerusalem Bible) The original sin was an act of disobedience

While a sin of disobedience may seem simple on the surface, consider its profound implications. A footnote in The New Jerusalem Bible puts it this way: "It [the knowledge of good and bad] is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence

That is why the Bible’s theme, God’s Kingdom, brings so much hope. By means of that Kingdom, Jehovah promises to end oppressive man-rule soon and replace it with His rule—a government that will restore an earthly paradise—something Adam and Eve forfeited.—Psalm 37:29; Daniel 2:44.

 

[Saltmeister]

Thus, primarily, God had created the first pair of humans with a "limited free will" with the capability to choose between good things only and, it was very different from what we humans have now. God did not want humans to have a free will of either choosing good or bad. If this is so, how can we differentiate between angels and humans? What made angels not to acquire the capability to do sin?

Actually, in Christianity, angels can be good or bad. Demons are really angels that have "turned to the dark side." Angels and demons are really the same beings. Sometimes when we talk about angels, what we really mean are "angels of light." Demons are angels of darkness. Angels are invisible spirits. We, on the other hand, are mortals with physical limitations. We don't have the power to perform miracles on our own. To perform miracles we must summon the power of other beings -- namely God and the angels He created.

Free will. I actually don't see it as a lack of free will to not be able to do evil. The question we have to ask ourselves is, what can we do and what will we do with our free will? Free will made it possible for Adam to eat the fruit. However, before that, he still had free will. It wasn't a limited free will, from my point of view. Is evil in human nature necessary for free will to exist?

My view is that it is not necessary. Satan was an angel whom God made to be perfect in conduct and pure and holy in nature as in all living things God created. Angels, unlike humans, are more powerful and more intelligent. It follows that Satan's power and intelligence made it possible for him to become evil.

The difference between humans and angels is that angels are created with immense power, knowledge and wisdom. Human beings were made to learn. God didn't give Adam the same power, knowledge and wisdom. This meant that Adam was naive. This doesn't mean that Adam had less free will than Satan because God made him less intelligent.

My view is that Satan's power made it possible for him to make such a dramatic transformation whereas a mere mortal like Adam couldn't become evil by his own power. Satan had free will and exploited it. Adam, however, was naive. Both had free will but only one of them was able to change his nature by his own power.

Satan's angelic nature was originally like Adam's human nature. Like Adam, Satan was a being that produced only good fruit. But he went beyond the capabilities God gave him and as an angel started producing new fruit, fruit that had never been produced before.

Satan became a whole new plant producing a whole new kind of fruit.

There are some that say that the Garden of Eden, the Trees of Life and Knowledge of Good/Evil were not physical, but spiritual. If the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was spiritual rather than physical, it could mean that Satan was this Tree of KGE and God was the Tree of Life.

Just a thought.

His capability to sin is the manifestation of his "full free will" .It doesn't mean he is "born with sin".

In Christianity sin doesn't just mean "wrongdoing." It also means the "seed of wrongdoing." It refers to something that not only lives in us, but is also a part of us. Sin is a general concept that refers not just to an act of evil, but also the living and active entity that serves as a driving force for wrongdoing. Our sinful and evil desires come from the sin that lives in us.

You should perhaps read Romans 4-8.

So I am no longer the one who does this thing, rather it is the sin that lives in me. Romans 7:17

I really dont think that a person who never sins despite having the capability to sin is as bad as the one who frequently sins.

My point was that "good" people can change.

People are generally only "good" for a reason. They want to be "good" because it is their pride. Sometimes after twenty years "good people" decide that they are sick of being good all the time. Always being good is boring. You always care more about other people than yourself. This means that everybody has a reason for being good. When that motivation disappears, they decide that they will not be good people anymore. It's no fun being good any more.

The real reason is that they were not really "good people" at all. In other words, they were not purely good. They are phonies. On the outside they're good people, but inside they've got dark dark thoughts. It's because there is evil in them. Sin lives in them. It was inside them all the time and now it has grown big enough for us to see the evil that was living in them.

This is why "good people" (also descendants of Adam) are just the same as us. They've just managed to keep their dark thoughts to themselves.

They were only good people for selfish reasons.

We can all try to be good people, but we can't deny that sin lives in us. Because of the sin inside us, good people (with evil in their human nature) are really just phonies.

I think that we can insult God by not following his commands and by going on the way of Satan.

Actually, I said it was insulting to God because of the above reason. It's because good people are really phonies. That's why it's insulting to God. We try to be good people, but we have all these other, dark thoughts. It disappoints others when we make a good impression with our good behaviour but when life gets difficult, we start making bad choices and behaving badly.

The only good people were those God created. We are no longer purely God's creation because God's creation was corrupted. That's why it's insulting to God.

Note: I tried to speak my mind in the best possible language I know. Since english is not my first language , So sorry for any errors in the post.

Actually, your English is quite good.

 

[mee]

The Bible tells us that God created man in his ‘image and likeness,’ and one of the faculties God himself has is freedom of choice. When he created humans, he gave them that same wonderful faculty—the gift of free will.

We were not made like mindless robots having no will of their own. Nor were we created to act out of instinct as were the animals. Instead, our marvelous brain was designed to work in harmony with our freedom of choice.

 

[dayaa]

hi all
talking of animals, i was just wondering actually if maybe that is the point. it's the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. maybe original man was intended to live like animals on his instinct, natural, simple. maybe it's not so much a question of sin as awareness of sin. we just had to be a bit too clever. and jesus taught simplicity....to be like children. i think i'd better stop here....that just came off the top of my head.....i surprised myself now...need to go and think this through

 

[Jibran]

Free will. I actually don't see it as a lack of free will to not be able to do evil. The question we have to ask ourselves is, what can we do and what will we do with our free will? Free will made it possible for Adam to eat the fruit. However, before that, he still had free will. It wasn't a limited free will, from my point of view. Is evil in human nature necessary for free will to exist?

I think that we have to analyse collectively the very notions of "human nature" and "free will" alongwith other related terms. Our instincts and behavioural tendencies constitute the "nature of a man'.Same is the case with free will. If we accept the meanings of both these words as we understand them now here in this world, then we have to classify the "human nature" and "free will" of Adam and Eve into different category. They can't be same because I think that there is a vital difference between the two.

Same can be said regarding your question. Eliminating evil instincts from "human nature", according to me, would make it "something different from human nature". And, I think, the capability of doing either good or bad makes us better then the rest of the creation.

My view is that it is not necessary. Satan was an angel whom God made to be perfect in conduct and pure and holy in nature as in all living things God created. Angels, unlike humans, are more powerful and more intelligent. It follows that Satan's power and intelligence made it possible for him to become evil.

My view is that Satan's power made it possible for him to make such a dramatic transformation whereas a mere mortal like Adam couldn't become evil by his own power. Satan had free will and exploited it. Adam, however, was naive. Both had free will but only one of them was able to change his nature by his own power.

Satan's angelic nature was originally like Adam's human nature. Like Adam, Satan was a being that produced only good fruit. But he went beyond the capabilities God gave him and as an angel started producing new fruit, fruit that had never been produced before.

If Satan was made powerful, perfect in conduct and pure and holy in nature then how could he use his "strange powers" to "acquire the capability to sin"?If he used his "immense and special powers" to acquire the capability to sin then it appears that God, on the first hand, had given the ability in Satan's powers through which he could, if he wished, change his course from good to bad. I would define this "ability" as "the capability to do either good or bad which depicts his "free will". He used his powers, or in other words, his free will, to go against the commands of God and questioned His creation of man.

How could Satan "go beyond the capabilities God gave him and as an angel started producing new fruit, fruit that had never been produced before?" For Satan to produce a new fruit, the seed should be there in his nature. The seed of free will and capability to do either good or bad

I think, how far intelligent and powerful might satan be, If God had not wished to create in his nature a free will or a capability to choose either of the good or bad path, he would have never be able to sin. I think, by considering otherwise, we are limiting God's Omnipotence and His Absolutness which is beyond question.

My point was that "good" people can change.

People are generally only "good" for a reason. They want to be "good" because it is their pride. Sometimes after twenty years "good people" decide that they are sick of being good all the time. Always being good is boring. You always care more about other people than yourself. This means that everybody has a reason for being good. When that motivation disappears, they decide that they will not be good people anymore. It's no fun being good any more.

The real reason is that they were not really "good people" at all. In other words, they were not purely good. They are phonies. On the outside they're good people, but inside they've got dark dark thoughts. It's because there is evil in them. Sin lives in them. It was inside them all the time and now it has grown big enough for us to see the evil that was living in them.

Here we can discuss the motives of doing good in length but I would limit myself only to a wee statement. By accepting the very human nature, i.e; ablilty to choose good or bad, a person may be a righteous,NOT because it is his "pride", or he wants to show to the world that he is a pious, or any such materialistic reason. A person may be righteous because his Lord commanded him to be righteous. He may be pious if he thinks the Orders of God are to be executed knowing that ALL the Orders of God are beneficial for himself and as well as for other people and the society he lives in.

Finally, I think we, human beings, are the best Creation of Almighty God. We are created in the best shape and nature. We are created in a free will which differentiates us from the creation which do not have this blessing. We are demanded to act in a way that suits our greatness among the Creation. We are told to seek refuge from the Evil ideas implanted in our hearts by Satan. If we succeed, then surely we pass the test of this world.

Actually, your English is quite good

Thank you for your appreciating comments. Also, I enjoyed this discussion with you and got a better understanding of the Christian view and the philosophy behind this view.

Thanks Again

Jibran

 

[Jibran]

Romans 5:19 "By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners." (The New Jerusalem Bible) The original sin was an act of disobedience

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

Romans 2:6. God "will give to each person according to what he has done.

 

[Quahom1]

To understand Origional Sin you must first understand that God created humans with the right to choose.

The story:

After God created man and created the garden of Eden He made one rule and only one rule, He said that there was a specific fruit from the "tree of Knowledge" that human (at the time Adam and Eve) could not eat. So after being tempted by the snake (some believe to be Satan) Eve *chose* to eat of the tree. After she had eaten from the tree she told Adam to try it and he *chose* to also eat therefore rebeling against God's one and only rule. Therefore, resulting in the Origional Sin.

Steve, if I may be so bold? The sin was not eating the fruit (that was death), the sin was making excuses to God as to why the fruit was eaten, as well as covering themselves (literally) from the sight of God.

In short, they fell out of balance with God. Brian states that man turned away from God...he is correct. We covered our nakedness, and turned our backs towards God. Hard to talk to a back...

v/r

Q

 

[mee]

[/font]


Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

Romans 2:6. God "will give to each person according to what he has done.

true, but they will still die , even if they are doing good because we are all in a dieing state as romans 5;12 tells us ,
That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned...romans 5;12

(Genesis 3:19) In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return."​

(1 Corinthians 15:21) For since death is through a man,(Adam) resurrection of the dead is also through a man(Jesus)

there is no getting away from it, 70 or80 years will be the most but before Adams sin they could have lived forever

 

[Saltmeister]

If Satan was made powerful, perfect in conduct and pure and holy in nature then how could he use his "strange powers" to "acquire the capability to sin"?

How could Satan "go beyond the capabilities God gave him and as an angel started producing new fruit, fruit that had never been produced before?" For Satan to produce a new fruit, the seed should be there in his nature.

Of course, this was a view that I was merely suggesting, but I believe there's a lot of truth to it. Ok, so how do I explain my view . . . ?

We have a creative God who invents things. However, he also created us to be capable of creativity. So how did Satan become evil without the seed? I don't think he needed the seed. He was an angel. God gave him the ability to imagine, create and visualise things. Not everybody realises his dreams, particularly mortals like us; but angels are different.

It's like this. Hundreds of years ago, there were no aeroplanes. So along came the Wright brothers. With aeroplanes, humans were able to fly. Of course, the aeroplane was just a machine that we built to defy gravity. Now there is also technology for changing your body -- even getting sex change.

It was a bit like that for Satan. He dreamed up what he wanted to be, and made the transformation. There was a world full of purely good people and no evil. So Satan dreamed up a world of evil to toy with because he was bored. It was like Satan getting a sex change.

So how could Satan choose to such a thing when his conduct was perfect? The point was that Satan needed a transformation. Originally he could only imagine a world of evil. His nature did not allow him to sin, but he could imagine a world of evil.

By "perfect in conduct" I meant that his nature didn't permit him to sin. Remember what I said about human nature being the soil and character being the plant that grows on it? What Satan did was much like inventing a new kind of soil, uprooting himself and planting himself in the new soil.

Same can be said regarding your question. Eliminating evil instincts from "human nature", according to me, would make it "something different from human nature". And, I think, the capability of doing either good or bad makes us better then the rest of the creation.

A person may be righteous because his Lord commanded him to be righteous. He may be pious if he thinks the Orders of God are to be executed knowing that ALL the Orders of God are beneficial for himself and as well as for other people and the society he lives in.

Having evil in human nature and being able to overcome it may sure seem like what makes us better to those who don't have it. But as I said there's a problem. "Good" people can be phonies.

However, the reason I don't see it that way is because we all know how destructive sin is. God didn't put evil in human nature because it was destructive. Furthermore, evil is redundant and unnecessary. Having evil in human nature contributes nothing positive to life in the long-term. Evil is something we don't need. It also retards spiritual growth and development.

Should God's creation be capable of defeating evil? I would say yes, but it's a matter of how we do it. I think it all comes down to the debate on good vs. bad people.

Following God's Laws? I believe God's Law was only issued because sin and evil were in the world. If everybody always did good, only good and nothing but good, God's Law would serve no purpose because people instinctively followed it. They follow it not because they are forcing themselves to do it, but because God made them capable of doing it without forcing themselves.

When God created us, we didn't need to force ourselves to become good people. No effort was required. He made us good people. But Adam ate the fruit from the Forbidden Tree. Now we all have to work hard to do good and only good because we have an extra choice to make. Now it takes great effort to be "morally upright."

We apparently have two different views of what it means to be "righteous." I believe that a person is only righteous if he does it naturally with very little effort. It's not the person who works hard at being good that is "righteous" but the person who doesn't need to work hard at being good. He is "righteous" because he is naturally good.

Rather than God creating beings that could defeat evil, God created beings that had nothing to defeat because they were immune to it.

This is basically the idea behind the Second Adam thing -- that Jesus was sinless and did good and only good without much effort -- nobody should need to work hard to be good. It should take no effort at all. The reason why it does require effort is because human nature is corrupt.

 

[Jibran]

Of course, this was a view that I was merely suggesting, but I believe there's a lot of truth to it. Ok, so how do I explain my view . . . ?

It was a bit like that for Satan. He dreamed up what he wanted to be, and made the transformation. There was a world full of purely good people and no evil. So Satan dreamed up a world of evil to toy with because he was bored. It was like Satan getting a sex change.

So how could Satan choose to such a thing when his conduct was perfect? The point was that Satan needed a transformation. Originally he could only imagine a world of evil. His nature did not allow him to sin, but he could imagine a world of evil.

We might be suggesting the same point but perhaps our approach was different. How will I explain it?

God created Satan with a free will but he was not a human (like Adam). With his free will, he could go either way, good or bad as he may chose. You called Satan "angel of darkness" but I put him in a different group of the created. I call him a Jinn which is different from both human beings and Angels. Angels do not have a will of their own. As they listen from God, they do, as they are commanded, they act.They (Angels) do not have a seed necessary for any kind of imagination of evil, or any transformation that could lead to evil but Jinns do have. With these definitions, Satan , I think, can better be called a Jinn. A creature of God different from angels and human beings which makes his own decisions by using their free will. We can call "free will" as "seed" present in both humans and Jinns which leads them to the evil path.

Satan believed in God. God was his creator but he disagreed God and took the path other than the God's path. It was not the will of God. Since God does not impose His ideas on creations having free will, so God did not stop by force, kill or destroy Satan (which was very easy and simple for God).

Satan's single wave of thinking to go against the orders of God was simple enough to describe his transformation. I don't think that he had to use any special or strange powers for that.

The second point which is difficult to understand is that how could Satan imagine a world of evil BEFORE there was any evil in this universe? because before Satan there was NO sin or evil and we ascribe all evils and sins to satan which is a "source of evil"?

The answer may be that everything which is against God's orders is a sin or evil, or in others words, disobeying God is a sin, and Satan chose to disobey God therefore he sinned.

Following God's Laws? I believe God's Law was only issued because sin and evil were in the world. If everybody always did good, only good and nothing but good, God's Law would serve no purpose because people instinctively followed it. They follow it not because they are forcing themselves to do it, but because God made them capable of doing it without forcing themselves.

Human beings have free will. They can make their own decisions. But humans are naive. God sent us on this world with a unique nature which has a characteristic of free will. And then God sent his Law, told people through His prophets, that If you follow the commands and obey Him, you are on the right path, the path of the good. But because of your deviant and corrupt nature, if you disobeye Him, you are on the wrong path, the path of the sin. Whosoever follows his Lord, will be rewarded a prize of heaven for standing firm in the test of world and whosoever disobeys will end up in Hell.

As for eradicating evil from human nature is necessary or not? There are different suggested ways in different religions, ethical systems and philosophies. (one is the Crufixion/Death of Jesus Christ to pay for the sins of the humanity etc) I believe that as long as human beings are living in this world, it is not possible. Inspite of eliminating evil from human nature, we can channelize it towards good. Though we have to work hard like we do to get good results in a mundane test. The difference is that it is a heavenly test, a test from God.

Thanks for your comments.

Jibran

 

[Saltmeister]

Satan believed in God. God was his creator but he disagreed God and took the path other than the God's path. It was not the will of God. Since God does not impose His ideas on creations having free will, so God did not stop by force, kill or destroy Satan (which was very easy and simple for God).

Satan's single wave of thinking to go against the orders of God was simple enough to describe his transformation. I don't think that he had to use any special or strange powers for that.

The second point which is difficult to understand is that how could Satan imagine a world of evil BEFORE there was any evil in this universe? because before Satan there was NO sin or evil and we ascribe all evils and sins to satan which is a "source of evil"?

I think the explanation is simple: God can imagine evil. He imparts his ability to imagine evil on us. Evil doesn't have to exist for people to imagine evil. That is what it means to be creative and imaginative. It means that your ideas are original.

I think it would be an understatement of God's Creation, including the angels, if they were not capable of imagining a world of evil where it did not previously exist. I believe God created the possibility of evil by making human beings and angels extendible. In other words, evil is merely an extension or complement of good. It's much like a supplement or add-on component of living things.

Consider the Yin and Yang concept in Chinese cosmology. The Yang/Yin concept suggests that there is always a balance between good and evil. As a Christian, I am not saying I support this view. I believe a balance doesn't always exist and doesn't need to. However, it's helpful to explore the different view on good and evil in different religions.

There are numerous debates on Satan and how he became evil. The prevailing theory is that God somehow made him evil deliberately. The Christian view is that he was originally good, but he was one of the most powerful and most beautiful angels. His beauty and wisdom led to his pride and finally to his rebellion. Some think that God made him exactly for this purpose. An angel with power, wisdom and beauty became too proud and became narcissistic.

The prophecy about the king of Tyre and the king of Babylon is really a prophecy about Satan.

This is what I, the Sovereign Lord says:

You were a model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
You were in Eden. Every precious stone adorned you.
....
You were anointed as guardian cherub, for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God, you walked among the fiery stones.
You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created to the day wickedness was found in you.
.....
Your heart became too proud because of your beauty
and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendour.
So I threw you to the earth. Ezekiel 28:12-17

King of Babylon:
O morning star, son of the dawn!!
You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations.
You said in your heart,

I will ascend into heaven. I will raise my throne above the stars of God.
I will set enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmosts heights of the sacred mountain.
I will ascend above the tops of the clouds.

I will make myself like the Most High. Isaiah 14:12-14

As for eradicating evil from human nature is necessary or not? There are different suggested ways in different religions, ethical systems and philosophies. Inspite of eliminating evil from human nature, we can channelize it towards good. Though we have to work hard like we do to get good results in a mundane test. The difference is that it is a heavenly test, a test from God.

I see that you your view is that evil not being part of human nature as evil subtracted from human nature. In other words, human nature without evil is incomplete. My view is that human nature is complete without evil. Evil is merely an extension to human nature. God made it possible to extend it if we wanted. The problem was that choosing to extend human nature led us all on the wrong path.

It's a question of power. Knowledge is power.

Knowledge of evil gave us the power to sin, the power to experiment, the power to show off, to brag and impress. This is why I don't see evil as being subtracted from human nature when we are purely good. God gave us a simple choice: choose to have the power or be humble and not try to be heroes. Temptation is where we imagine evil. During temptation, we have not yet sinned. However, if we want what temptation offers, that is where the sin comes to life and starts growing. Lack of evil, in my view, does not make us incomplete. The presence of evil is a result of us choosing to wield the power of evil. It's an extension to a human nature that is already complete.

I would agree that yes, the challenge is for us to choose between good and evil. What you're saying is that we should be tested on our ability to choose between good and evil. However, if you know evil is bad, why put yourself in a position to sin? If evil is dangerous, why sleep with the enemy?

Whether it's in Judaism, Christianity or Islam, we are all warned to avoid being in a position to sin. In Islam, there's a law that forbids a man or woman who are not married from being together. Islam reasons that the man and woman are putting themselves in a position to commit adultery. Islam also tells people to cover up so as not to tempt the opposite sex to commit adultery. Christianity says we should put to death the sin in our human nature. It must no longer be a living force in our lives. No more insults or obscene talk.

God never said you had to be near a seductive man or woman to prove you were a righteous man or woman!!!!

Just because the sin in us or society doesn't exist anymore, doesn't mean we're cowards in the face of evil!!! It means we're confronting evil and defeating it. We are in fact doing the right thing by getting rid of it. By choosing not to have evil in us, we reject the power of evil. There is no need to impress God by keeping evil alive so that you can fight it again and again. If evil must die, then kill it!!! No need to play games with evil.

 

[Quahom1]

I submit the death of sin and evil, would be the death of man. There must be a counter-point in our lives in order to understand the point. Sin for example is the act, wherein evil is the thought behind the act. There can be no sin if there is no thought of sinning. But then, we'd be mindless drones (Stepford people).

We strive for balance in our lives. Sin is being off balance, and evil is the desire to move against that balance.

Evil is not some hugely ugly monster that hides under our beds at night. It is little things, like preferring to go to the bar after work on Friday night instead of going home to the family. It is a selfish thought, instead of thinking of others first. The "sin" would be to complete the thought by an act (actually going to the bar, instead of bringing the needed paycheck home).

Jesus said that if we even think about adultery we have commited it. Why? Becuase every act begins with a thought. And by thinking about the wrong thing, we are setting ourselves up to eventually commit it. Thinking about things that we desire (that are not rightfully ours), is not a one time thing, especially if we obsess on it. It affects those around us even though we have not physically committed the act. How? If we're married for example, we nolonger look at our spouses the same way, we do not act the sameway we used to. We don't think of our spouses the same way.

So now we have committed two wrongs against two people, and we haven't even physically acted on the first wrong yet. Then if we have children, they sense the distancing between mom and dad (sometimes before mom and dad realize it). This makes children become insecure and confused, which causes them to act out in ways they normally wouldn't. So now we have affected three groups of people.

This is why we struggle daily against a neccessary part of ourselves. It keeps us on our toes, and aware. We are struggling against self, and selfish thought, which is the beginning of all evil. Take away evil, and in essence take away self. Then there is no more sin, for we no longer exist to commit that sin.

Perhaps that is why God said the he who controls himself, is more powerful than he who rules an entire city...

my thoughts

v/r

Q

 

[Saltmeister]

I submit the death of sin and evil, would be the death of man. There must be a counter-point in our lives in order to understand the point. Sin for example is the act, wherein evil is the thought behind the act. There can be no sin if there is no thought of sinning. But then, we'd be mindless drones (Stepford people).

We strive for balance in our lives. Sin is being off balance, and evil is the desire to move against that balance.

Evil is not some hugely ugly monster that hides under our beds at night. It is little things, like preferring to go to the bar after work on Friday night instead of going home to the family. It is a selfish thought, instead of thinking of others first. The "sin" would be to complete the thought by an act (actually going to the bar, instead of bringing the needed paycheck home).

From what I've read so far in the Bible, I get the impression that sin is more than the act of sinning, it is also a living thing, a parasite that lives in us and instills in us a desire to do wrong. It has a life of its own and that is where its power comes from. Actually, if you look at it from another angle, it's really our dark side and we're told in the New Testament to be "dead to our dark side" and alive to Christ (our bright side).

My impression is that it is a hugy ugly monster living inside us. Every time we choose to do what sin tells us, we let this monster grow. As life goes on, this monster gets bigger and bigger until eventually we are so completely possessed by it that we are dead to God.

Perhaps that is why God said the he who controls himself, is more powerful than he who rules an entire city...

I agree.

Looking back at all the posts so far, I think what Jibran is saying is people shouldn't be judged sinful until they've sinned. In other words, a baby that dies five minutes after it's born shouldn't go to hell because it hasn't done anything wrong and it hasn't had a chance to hear the Christian Gospel.

Christianity's view is that people are judged sinful even before they've sinned. The idea is that if God left us to live for 1,000 years, we would live long enough and be able to sin enough so that there would no difference between "good" and "bad" people. Everyone is basically the same.

On the other hand, I believe that while the baby doesn't pass straight into God's kingdom as a result of hearing the Gospel, it will still be able to enter God's Kingdom as a result of passing Judgment and being judged innocent. If Christ came to save us from our sins, then a baby that dies after five minutes can't go to hell anyway because it hasn't done anything severely wrong. All unbelievers pass through Judgment. They don't automatically go to hell. They are judged for their deeds.

Christ's sacrifice was to save those who were repentant. A baby has practically nothing to repent.

Is it important to do the right thing, to have self-control? Yes. However, one should not take it too far. God never said we have to try to be better than other people. God never said you have to be so perfect that you always do the right thing.

Is there a problem with always doing the right thing? Yes. A person who is so perfect that he always does the right thing can challenge God and make himself a source of righteousness. Because God created us, nobody is to try to be so perfect that he always does the right thing, because then he can take people away from God and that is not acceptable. It would be rebellion against God.

From an absolute justice point of view, it is unjust for God to even choose people to go to heaven just because they're responsible in life and always make the right choices. Firstly, he's trying to be better than everyone else. Secondly, we are all part of a spiritual journey. Each of us is at a different stage in this journey and it would be cruel for God to cut us off just because we had a little longer to go.

It's unfair. It would be unjust for that person to go to heaven just because he was always in a position to do the right thing and everybody else missed out.

I think that's the basic idea behind Christianity's concept of cancelling sins. Those who realise this basic principle understand the reason why they are being granted entry into God's Kingdom. It's got nothing to do with how good you are, but the fact that you are now on a spiritual journey to God's Kingdom. They have the right sentiment. Those who don't understand don't have the right sentiment and don't automatically go into His Kingdom. They must first stand trial under God's Judgment.

It's a bit like immigration. You can't become a citizen in a country without first applying for citizenship. In your application, you must give your reasons for settling in a particular country. Those who don't apply properly for immigration never get a chance to settle in that country and spend years in an asylum.

So why does God not accept you into His Kingdom? It's because you're an illegal immigrant.

 

[17th Angel]

The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty." Yes, "the tree of the knowledge of good and bad" symbolized God’s prerogative to set the standards for man as to what is approved or what is condemned. By refusing to obey God’s law, man was calling into question God’s very right to rule over him. Jehovah justly answered the challenge by allowing man to rule himself. Wouldn’t you agree that the results have been disastrous?—Deuteronomy 32:5; Ecclesiastes 8:9

Nice answer...

Then that is what put the 'dent' into the 'mould' and we all have the original sin...

 

[Thomas]

Hi Jibran -

Two things first - the spiritual anthropology of Genesis 1-3 is a metaphysical more than a factual account. It is easier to read it as how a situation arises than a report of what happened. The other is that, like our ends, man emerges from, and passes into, a mystery - there will never be a complete explanation this side of the veil, as it were.

Having said that -

I think it is an integral part of the human free will which would be meaningless without the ability or inclination to do sin.

Ability, yes, but not necessarily mean inclination. What does free will mean to God? It can only mean that man is free to will what God wills, or will other than God wills, but 'free' does not mean 'inclined', nor that he 'must'.

It is us, the humans, to decide with our free will which way to choose though God has warned us againt the wrong path.

Agreed. Man was created, and God brought forward all the animals for man to name. He was given everything in the garden to use as he wills, with the sole proviso of not eating the fruit of the tree of duality.

It appears that If Adam would not have acquired the capability to sin by eating the fruit, his children would never have sinned.

Man always has the capability to sin, but by eating the fruit he actualised or realised that capability. Had he not, his children would still have been capable as he. The possibility would still be there. The tree is there. As the policeman says - 'means, motive and opportunity'. I doubt the serpent would accept defeat.

But the point is that If humans would not have the capacity to sin on the first hand, their characteristic of free will would have been in doubt.

Are you sure? I am not convinced. One doesn't have to sin to prove one's freedom. Free will is not synonymous with sin.

By not having the capability to sin equals the humans to the Angels who, according to the held view, do not have free will and thus they do not have the capability or tendency to sin.

Not according to Judaic/Christian/Moslem scripture. There was an angelic fall before the human fall, for precisely the same reason.

Here we get into angelic orders. Some angels obviously have 'free will' they are messengers but not recorded messages - The Angel Gabriel could not dialogue with Mary or with Mohammed (pbuh) without free will.

How, we can justify the free will of Adam with his NO capability to sin before eating the fruit?

Secondly, how can sin be a hereditary disease while not having the ability to sin contradicts the characteristic of free will?

Again, 'free will' necessarily means the ability to act other than according to the will of God - but does not mean that man must do so.

On the question of heredity ... consider memetics:

"Richard Dawkins ... introduced the term after writing that evolution depended not on the particular chemical basis of genetics, but only on the existence of a self-replicating unit of transmission — in the case of biological evolution, the gene. For Dawkins, the meme exemplifies another self-replicating unit, and most importantly, one which he thought would prove useful in explaining human behavior and cultural evolution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#Dawkins_genetic_analogy

(Never thought I'd find myself referencing Richard Dawkins in defence of religion!)

If we take the notion of an idea as a meme, and that once someone has had an idea, all people can have the same idea, then we have Adam as Primordial man introducing an 'error' into the system, which gets replicated down the line ... something like karma ... but the idea being that sin was a possibility, and a potentiality, but it was not an actuality until someone sinned - when it became actual, it changed the nature of reality, because it introduced duality which shattered the primordial unity.

In the Christian tradition man's nature is still ordered to perfection, still made in the image and likeness of God, but his nature is wounded beyond its capacity to repair itself.

A bit involved, I hope I haven't clouded the issue too much.

The salient argument is that man was free, and able to sin, from the moment of his creation. Eating the fruit was not the cause of sin, the cause lies with Adam's decision to disobey God.

Thomas

 

[mee]

Nice answer...

Then that is what put the 'dent' into the 'mould' and we all have the original sin...

yes thats about it, if a bread tin has a dent every loaf after the first, will come out dented(imperfect) in a dieing state .but no worries the first prophecy in the bible at Genesis 3;15 is now well along , and soon that dent will nolonger be there , but that is for another thread i think LOL

 

[Quahom1]

yes thats about it, if a bread tin has a dent every loaf after the first, will come out dented(imperfect) in a dieing state .but no worries the first prophecy in the bible at Genesis 3;15 is now well along , and soon that dent will nolonger be there , but that is for another thread i think LOL

For those that accept Christ, the "dent" is removed immediately. We are re-made, reborn (as it is quoted in the Bible). We are no longer dying, nor do we have to fear death (unless it is the dusty body one is worrying about ceasing to function). We are not "washed anew" after we die, we are washed anew right then and there. If not, then the whole concept of Christ's teaching would be based on a lie...

Some how I find that unfathomable.

v/r

Q