The doctrine of original sin

13

Comments

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Martin54:.

    Russ: The combination of a good creator and evil inbuilt human desires is just incoherent.

    Martin54: Not if inbuilt by evolution of grounded being. But agreed with that proviso.

    As I understand it natural selection requires what is popularly described as a 'selfish gene' (s), so that human beings are by nature inheritors of that characteristic. In nature, of course, the gene operates in a non-moral manner, but from a human perspective, assuming the emergence of homo sapiens to have been purposed by God (good), such 'selfishness' has been providential. The problem, of course, is that self-awareness, coupled with a knowledge of personal mortality, has resulted in a sense of insecurity that can produce what we identify as unacceptable anti-social behaviour, or, in religious terms, sin. The selfish gene results in sinful behaviour, it can be argued, not through conception or birth, but from the attainment of moral responsibility. We have, therefore, the paradox that the evolutionary process was 'good' in producing beings that could 'know' God, but also created the conditions for sinful behaviour.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Martin54:.

    Russ: The combination of a good creator and evil inbuilt human desires is just incoherent.

    Martin54: Not if inbuilt by evolution of grounded being. But agreed with that proviso.

    As I understand it natural selection requires what is popularly described as a 'selfish gene' (s), so that human beings are by nature inheritors of that characteristic. In nature, of course, the gene operates in a non-moral manner, but from a human perspective, assuming the emergence of homo sapiens to have been purposed by God (good), such 'selfishness' has been providential. The problem, of course, is that self-awareness, coupled with a knowledge of personal mortality, has resulted in a sense of insecurity that can produce what we identify as unacceptable anti-social behaviour, or, in religious terms, sin. The selfish gene results in sinful behaviour, it can be argued, not through conception or birth, but from the attainment of moral responsibility. We have, therefore, the paradox that the evolutionary process was 'good' in producing beings that could 'know' God, but also created the conditions for sinful behaviour.

    Now that I like. So how could we 'know' God at any time in our moral past?
  • This is why old-fashioned people (like me) believe in the existence of the devil. Besides the fact that the Bible treats him as a real creature, I mean.

    No, God did not create the sin nature. It is not in fact a thing-in-itself, but rather a corruption of the good nature God did create in human beings. And that corruption is owing to a combination of the work of a malignant enemy (the devil, who has reasons to want to fuck us up) and our own crass stupidity in giving way to him.

    It makes no sense to lay responsibility for this at God's feet. He could not have prevented it without completely infantilizing the human race.

    Unlikely that it (I dislike dignifying it with a personal pronoun) is as pictured, a red coloured being with bifurcated tongue, horns and tail etc. Evil (an old fashioned word I guess) certainly exists, and will adapt itself to the life and historical times. Today, a red coloured horned creature with bifurcated tongue and tail - evil personified - is less likely than internalized bits of malevolent influence I think.

    As for corruption. That's a hard one, because of what science tells us. That there's always been competition amongst creatures killing and eating each other, decay, change. The biblical stories were as much as the people back them could report and eventually write down, with entirely different frames of reference than we have. The very structure of the universe seems to contain the tendencies toward both positive and negative- polarities. And we're at the point of another more elabourate story, that is also incomplete. The disputable part is the entry of death of the individual in the biblical story in the organized paradise garden, which I query is differentiated from collective family and tribe.
  • As for the idea that we can blame our actions on our spiritual parasite (sin nature) and get out of responsibility that way, that is very much like saying, "It's not my fault, Officer. I was drunk."

    But people choose to drink. They don't choose to have a sin nature.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    My head hurts.
    :grimace:

    Quite why God, knowing what he does/did, still allows/allowed us to proceed, is an insoluble mystery.

    Perhaps he's a masochist.
    Or a sadist?

    The concept of Dualism appeals more and more each day...

    You do know he reads these pages, don't you ?

    Given that Augustine's doctrine of Original sin was hammered out in his dispute with Pelagius, how does this shape our understanding? I read the wikipedia page on the controversy this morning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism, and one point made is that what Pelagius believed is probably not much different from what some good Eastern Church fathers believed.
    Certainly no different to what I believe
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Josh Hawley apparently blames everything wrong with our world on Pelagius: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/opinion/josh-hawley-religion-democracy.html

    Given that Augustine's doctrine of Original sin was hammered out in his dispute with Pelagius, how does this shape our understanding? I read the wikipedia page on the controversy this morning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism, and one point made is that what Pelagius believed is probably not much different from what some good Eastern Church fathers believed.

    From the first link:
    human beings have the freedom to choose how they live their lives and that grace comes to those who do good things, as opposed to those who believe the right doctrines.
    Just leave out , as opposed to those who believe the right doctrines

    There's no horse race between grace and works.

    I had this dream the other night and it was as confused as per normal. I suddenly heard a voice say, " For Genesis read James 2 to 5 " No idea why it excluded chapter 1

  • Telford wrote: »
    You do know he reads these pages, don't you ?

    Go on.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    You do know he reads these pages, don't you ?

    Go on.
    Nothing to add. No need

  • Telford wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    You do know he reads these pages, don't you ?

    Go on.
    Nothing to add. No need

    No need to have said it in the first place.
  • This is why old-fashioned people (like me) believe in the existence of the devil. Besides the fact that the Bible treats him as a real creature, I mean.

    No, God did not create the sin nature. It is not in fact a thing-in-itself, but rather a corruption of the good nature God did create in human beings. And that corruption is owing to a combination of the work of a malignant enemy (the devil, who has reasons to want to fuck us up) and our own crass stupidity in giving way to him.

    It makes no sense to lay responsibility for this at God's feet. He could not have prevented it without completely infantilizing the human race.

    Unlikely that it (I dislike dignifying it with a personal pronoun) is as pictured, a red coloured being with bifurcated tongue, horns and tail etc. Evil (an old fashioned word I guess) certainly exists, and will adapt itself to the life and historical times. Today, a red coloured horned creature with bifurcated tongue and tail - evil personified - is less likely than internalized bits of malevolent influence I think.

    As for corruption. That's a hard one, because of what science tells us. That there's always been competition amongst creatures killing and eating each other, decay, change. The biblical stories were as much as the people back them could report and eventually write down, with entirely different frames of reference than we have. The very structure of the universe seems to contain the tendencies toward both positive and negative- polarities. And we're at the point of another more elabourate story, that is also incomplete. The disputable part is the entry of death of the individual in the biblical story in the organized paradise garden, which I query is differentiated from collective family and tribe.

    The red horn creature is AFAIK a cartoon convention having nothing to do with the real thing.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    As for the idea that we can blame our actions on our spiritual parasite (sin nature) and get out of responsibility that way, that is very much like saying, "It's not my fault, Officer. I was drunk."

    But people choose to drink. They don't choose to have a sin nature.

    Depends on exactly how you think that sin nature made its way into the formerly good human race.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    This is why old-fashioned people (like me) believe in the existence of the devil. Besides the fact that the Bible treats him as a real creature, I mean.

    No, God did not create the sin nature. It is not in fact a thing-in-itself, but rather a corruption of the good nature God did create in human beings. And that corruption is owing to a combination of the work of a malignant enemy (the devil, who has reasons to want to fuck us up) and our own crass stupidity in giving way to him.

    It makes no sense to lay responsibility for this at God's feet. He could not have prevented it without completely infantilizing the human race.

    Unlikely that it (I dislike dignifying it with a personal pronoun) is as pictured, a red coloured being with bifurcated tongue, horns and tail etc. Evil (an old fashioned word I guess) certainly exists, and will adapt itself to the life and historical times. Today, a red coloured horned creature with bifurcated tongue and tail - evil personified - is less likely than internalized bits of malevolent influence I think.

    As for corruption. That's a hard one, because of what science tells us. That there's always been competition amongst creatures killing and eating each other, decay, change. The biblical stories were as much as the people back them could report and eventually write down, with entirely different frames of reference than we have. The very structure of the universe seems to contain the tendencies toward both positive and negative- polarities. And we're at the point of another more elabourate story, that is also incomplete. The disputable part is the entry of death of the individual in the biblical story in the organized paradise garden, which I query is differentiated from collective family and tribe.

    The red horn creature is AFAIK a cartoon convention having nothing to do with the real thing.

    What's the real thing?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    As for the idea that we can blame our actions on our spiritual parasite (sin nature) and get out of responsibility that way, that is very much like saying, "It's not my fault, Officer. I was drunk."

    But people choose to drink. They don't choose to have a sin nature.

    Depends on exactly how you think that sin nature made its way into the formerly good human race.

    And when.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    You do know he reads these pages, don't you ?

    Go on.
    Nothing to add. No need

    No need to have said it in the first place.
    So why did you ?

  • mousethief wrote: »
    As for the idea that we can blame our actions on our spiritual parasite (sin nature) and get out of responsibility that way, that is very much like saying, "It's not my fault, Officer. I was drunk."

    But people choose to drink. They don't choose to have a sin nature.

    Depends on exactly how you think that sin nature made its way into the formerly good human race.

    Well this is the whole thing about original sin. It didn't make its way into the human race through me. I wasn't born yet. I had no choice in the matter. A&E didn't ask me if they should eat the apple, any more than my 16 year old mother, years before I was born, ask me if she should take biology or chemistry.
  • Telford wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    You do know he reads these pages, don't you ?

    Go on.
    Nothing to add. No need

    No need to have said it in the first place.
    So why did you ?

    I didn't, you did. Sheesh. This is like pulling teeth.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    As I do not believe the first few chapters of Genesis to be factual, why would I believe in the concept of original sin ?

    While the first chapters of Genesis are not historically or scientifically factual, they do present truths about the relationship between God and creation and in particular humans. That said, I agree: I do not accept the doctrine of original sin.

    What truths?

    They affirm who is behind the creation---but are silent on the how.
    They affirm that all of creation is "tov" very good
    They affirm God is still involved with creation and is still creating.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    As I do not believe the first few chapters of Genesis to be factual, why would I believe in the concept of original sin ?

    While the first chapters of Genesis are not historically or scientifically factual, they do present truths about the relationship between God and creation and in particular humans. That said, I agree: I do not accept the doctrine of original sin.

    What truths?

    They affirm who is behind the creation---but are silent on the how.
    They affirm that all of creation is "tov" very good
    They affirm God is still involved with creation and is still creating.

    I'll buy that for a dollar.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    No, God did not create the sin nature. It is not in fact a thing-in-itself, but rather a corruption of the good nature God did create in human beings. And that corruption is owing to a combination of the work of a malignant enemy (the devil, who has reasons to want to fuck us up)...

    I think that's logical - in order to preserve the notion of a good God the source of evil has to be outside that system which God created.

    God creating a corrupted human nature doesn't seem meaningfully different from God creating a corruptible human nature alongside a source of corruption...
  • Russ wrote: »
    No, God did not create the sin nature. It is not in fact a thing-in-itself, but rather a corruption of the good nature God did create in human beings. And that corruption is owing to a combination of the work of a malignant enemy (the devil, who has reasons to want to fuck us up)...

    I think that's logical - in order to preserve the notion of a good God the source of evil has to be outside that system which God created.

    God creating a corrupted human nature doesn't seem meaningfully different from God creating a corruptible human nature alongside a source of corruption...

    It makes all the difference. You are positing that God is equally to blame if he creates people with free choice and puts them in a creation alongside other creatures (angels) with free choice, who may or may not by that point have corrupted themselves with it, and then set out to corrupt humanity etc.

    Basically you are saying that if God left any possibility of us being tempted and falling, that God is to blame.

    You might as well say that if I allow my young relatives any chance of failing to do their homework, that their bad grades are on me.

    I am not a prisonhouse keeper. Neither is God. God gave the first human beings the warning they needed. He said bluntly, "Don't do X." They went right the fuck ahead and did X. And they did it in rebellion against a God who had never done anything but good to them, at the instigation of a stranger who had never done them good at all. So not only was this wrong, it was stupid.

    Really, what do you expect from God?

    A warning? He gave them that.
    Plenty of other better options (all the other trees in the garden)? He gave them that.
    A warm, trusting relationship with their benefactor? They had that, too.
    A daily check-in time (=walk in the garden together) when they could have ASKED him about the bullshit line the devil was feeding them? They had that.
    A fellow human being to consult with? There you go.
    A sinless and probably far-more-intelligent (because less corrupted) mind and heart, fit to make good decisions, and utterly free of any internal pressure toward evil (such as we now have to deal with)? Check.

    I suppose you can say that he should have followed them around all day, or handcuffed them, or forbade them to have any contact with anybody who could possibly tempt them, but all of that is infantilizing.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    As for the idea that we can blame our actions on our spiritual parasite (sin nature) and get out of responsibility that way, that is very much like saying, "It's not my fault, Officer. I was drunk."

    But people choose to drink. They don't choose to have a sin nature.

    Depends on exactly how you think that sin nature made its way into the formerly good human race.

    Well this is the whole thing about original sin. It didn't make its way into the human race through me. I wasn't born yet. I had no choice in the matter. A&E didn't ask me if they should eat the apple, any more than my 16 year old mother, years before I was born, ask me if she should take biology or chemistry.

    Nobody said (Okay, I didn't say) it was fair. Anymore than it's fair that a child is born with congenital syphilis when its mother is infected before birth--or that a child develops schizophrenia as a result of genetic errors in its elderly father's sperm. It's not fair, but it's the universe we live in. Sin has consequences, not just for us but for those around us.

    Please note that I am not arguing for original guilt, but original sin. If you take the test case of a child who dies before he/she is able to commit a single solitary actual sin, the child is still infected, yes. So what does that mean before God, at judgment?

    We're not told (as with so many situations). And yet...

    Knowing the unscrupulosity of God, and his vast, sweeping love for every human being, even and especially "the least of these," I'd put my life on it he saves those people. He saves them in Christ, just as we are saved. I think that is at the root of what Paul is saying with his mysterious stuff about being "in Adam" and "in Christ." There is no point in fussing about "but it's not fair that God condemns unborn babies etc." if at one and the same time God SAVES unborn babies and etc. The grace is always greater than the sin, and there is absolutely nothing in God's personality to suggest that he WANTS anybody to be damned. He goes to huge lengths to avoid it, including his own death and resurrection--and then ridiculous extremes to see that as many people as possible hear the Gospel and believe (see Philip and the Ethiopian; Peter and Cornelius; Paul and Silas and the jailer's family; and so forth, and so on).

    As far as I can make out, you have to actually choose damnation* if you want it--and go on choosing it, all your life long--up to the very last pico-second of your life--and even then, I suspect you may have difficulty.

    * This is not to say that those who truly choose it, are completely aware that that is the correct term for what they are choosing. They may call it by another name, such as "my rights" or "me first, second, and always" or "how dare anyone make demands on me" or "no one is going to change my mind no matter what."
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    You do know he reads these pages, don't you ?

    Go on.
    Nothing to add. No need

    No need to have said it in the first place.
    So why did you ?

    I didn't, you did. Sheesh. This is like pulling teeth.


    mousethief wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    You do know he reads these pages, don't you ?

    Go on.
    Nothing to add. No need

    No need to have said it in the first place.
    So why did you ?

    I didn't, you did. Sheesh. This is like pulling teeth.
    You do know he reads these pages, don't you ?
    .........joke
  • Yes. There is a joke here.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Basically you are saying that if God left any possibility of us being tempted and falling, that God is to blame.

    You might as well say that if I allow my young relatives any chance of failing to do their homework, that their bad grades are on me.

    No, I'm talking about causality. To the extent that you cause your relatives to fail to do their homework then their bad grades are indeed down to you.

    If "sin nature" never causes anything, why bother mentioning it ?

    If conversely it is a cause of wrongdoing, then to the extent that it causes wrongdoing then the creators of that "sin nature" are morally responsible for what it causes.

    And then you trace the cause of evil (and the accompanying moral responsibility for evil) back from something in human nature to the devil. Fine, he's responsible for the evil in the world.

    Where did his evil come from ? Either you're a Dualist and he is outside what God made. Or the devil is a fallen angel who was made good and was corrupted. Who corrupted him ?

    If nobody corrupted him, then a being with free will can decide for evil without need of any source of corruption. So a "sin nature" isn't needed as an explanation.

    You're making a good attempt at making sense of the tradition, Lamb. But seems like the logic isn't there.


  • What I find striking is that the "free will" argument doesn't seem to appear much, if at all, in the Bible. Rather, there is an emphasis on the sovereignty of God - "I bring prosperity and create disaster" (Isaiah 45).

    The most obvious example is perhaps in Romans 9 where Paul is answering the objection: "why does God blame us? For who has resisted his will?". You would expect that if anywhere, this is where the "free will" defence would be rolled out. But Paul doesn't do that! Instead he says: "who are you to talk back to God? The pot has no right to say to the potter: why did you make me like this?" (I've just noticed that this seems like a reference to that same passage in Isaiah 45).
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Russ: And then you trace the cause of evil (and the accompanying moral responsibility for evil) back from something in human nature to the devil. Fine, he's responsible for the evil in the world.

    Where did his evil come from ? Either you're a Dualist and he is outside what God made. Or the devil is a fallen angel who was made good and was corrupted. Who corrupted him ?

    I agree, Russ, the introduction of the Devil doesn't resolve the problem of the origin of evil, though it changes the subsequent conversion. The issue was most elegantly posed by William Blake in The Tyger:, which I've referenced before, and will probably do so again with little reluctance:

    What the hammer? what the chain,
    In what furnace was thy brain?
    What the anvil? what dread grasp,
    Dare its deadly terrors clasp!

    When the stars threw down their spears
    And water'd heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

    Tyger Tyger burning bright,
    In the forests of the night:
    What immortal hand or eye,
    Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

    What are the boundaries between 'good' and 'evil'. To quote Pope's Essay on Man:

    “All nature is but art, unknown to thee;
    All chance, direction, which thou canst not see;
    All discord, harmony not understood;
    All partial evil, universal good.
    And, spite of pride, in erring reason's spite,
    One truth is clear, 'Whatever is, is right.”

    I'm not sure where we go from here, except to point out that the doctrine of Original Sin might have some merits, but like all theories it's just a theory, and there are limits to its usefulness. Some of the questions it raises might better be considered through other theological paradigms.
  • Bill_NobleBill_Noble Shipmate
    edited January 13
    We find it a convenient shorthand to personify the aspects of life which we cannot seem to control, no matter how hard we try. The forces and compulsions which tarnish, spoil and ruin lives.

    So death becomes Death, a skeleton with a love of hooded robes, old agricultural implements and xylophone musical accompaniment. Biblically, Death gets angelic status - a created agent.

    You can see the same thing with evil / The Enemy.

    From our point of view, these figures are something to blame. Their biblical role is that of useful idiots.

    (P.S. Don’t fear the reaper)
  • What I find striking is that the "free will" argument doesn't seem to appear much, if at all, in the Bible. Rather, there is an emphasis on the sovereignty of God - "I bring prosperity and create disaster" (Isaiah 45).

    The most obvious example is perhaps in Romans 9 where Paul is answering the objection: "why does God blame us? For who has resisted his will?". You would expect that if anywhere, this is where the "free will" defence would be rolled out. But Paul doesn't do that! Instead he says: "who are you to talk back to God? The pot has no right to say to the potter: why did you make me like this?" (I've just noticed that this seems like a reference to that same passage in Isaiah 45).

    Paul could have gone two ways there. He could have gone the free will route, dismissing their objection on logical grounds ("What do you mean, you don't resist God's will? I saw you at that bar last week"). That's what you are saying he did not do, and you infer that he did not do it because he did not believe it. But there's another reason why he might not have chosen to have that discussion at that exact moment, and that is pastoral motivation.

    Paul is concerned not only for their logic but for their behavior, their morality, their attitudes. And "Why does God blame us? It's his fault, after all" brings out the roaring lion in Paul--or maybe I should say the extremely concerned apostle, watching his people fuck up attitudinally. That's why he chooses to address what seems to him a more pressing issue than logic and free will--the issue which is the utterly shocking (to him; maybe not to modern Westerners)--the utterly shocking attempt of creatures to throw the blame on God. (Which is in itself an expression of free will, but I digress.)

    To Paul, at that particular point in his writing, the issue that needed addressing was precisely the same one Prospero addresses when his daughter backtalks to him in the Tempest, and he replies, "What, my foot my tutor?" It's basically the "how dare you" of a parent to a child, a master to a student, a king to a subject. I imagine this is probably the least popular point in all of Paul's writings, at least in the modern West, but Paul and Paul's hearers would have thought very differently. Placing the blame on God is both illogical and immoral, as Paul sees it, and here he chooses to address the immorality issue first. And he does it by dragging their argument out to the nth degree, by making it ("Doesn't the potter...? What if God...?") and showing that, even in those extreme cases, we have no right to mouth off.

    tl;dr: If Paul doesn't raise the free will argument at that point, it's because he had other more important fish to fry.
  • Really, what do you expect from God?

    Not creating a Forbidden Tree, thus setting us up to fail, in the first place?
  • Placing the blame on God is both illogical and immoral, as Paul sees it, and here he chooses to address the immorality issue first. And he does it by dragging their argument out to the nth degree, by making it ("Doesn't the potter...? What if God...?") and showing that, even in those extreme cases, we have no right to mouth off.

    Even if the claim that it's God's fault is true?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    Basically you are saying that if God left any possibility of us being tempted and falling, that God is to blame.

    You might as well say that if I allow my young relatives any chance of failing to do their homework, that their bad grades are on me.

    No, I'm talking about causality. To the extent that you cause your relatives to fail to do their homework then their bad grades are indeed down to you.

    If "sin nature" never causes anything, why bother mentioning it ?

    If conversely it is a cause of wrongdoing, then to the extent that it causes wrongdoing then the creators of that "sin nature" are morally responsible for what it causes.

    And then you trace the cause of evil (and the accompanying moral responsibility for evil) back from something in human nature to the devil. Fine, he's responsible for the evil in the world.

    Where did his evil come from ? Either you're a Dualist and he is outside what God made. Or the devil is a fallen angel who was made good and was corrupted. Who corrupted him ?

    If nobody corrupted him, then a being with free will can decide for evil without need of any source of corruption. So a "sin nature" isn't needed as an explanation.

    You're making a good attempt at making sense of the tradition, Lamb. But seems like the logic isn't there.

    Very good Russ. Very good.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 13
    Really, what do you expect from God?

    Not creating a Forbidden Tree, thus setting us up to fail, in the first place?

    The letting a lying snake lose, just to make sure.
  • Lose? Or loose?
    :naughty:

    Either might be correct...
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Placing the blame on God is both illogical and immoral, as Paul sees it, and here he chooses to address the immorality issue first. And he does it by dragging their argument out to the nth degree, by making it ("Doesn't the potter...? What if God...?") and showing that, even in those extreme cases, we have no right to mouth off.

    Even if the claim that it's God's fault is true?

    Not God's fault. Not even the fault of author of the early part of Genesis. It was merely a primitive attempt to explain the origin of things.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Lose? Or loose?
    :naughty:

    Either might be correct...

    But not the missing 'n'.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    What I find striking is that the "free will" argument doesn't seem to appear much, if at all, in the Bible. Rather, there is an emphasis on the sovereignty of God - "I bring prosperity and create disaster" (Isaiah 45).

    The most obvious example is perhaps in Romans 9 where Paul is answering the objection: "why does God blame us? For who has resisted his will?". You would expect that if anywhere, this is where the "free will" defence would be rolled out. But Paul doesn't do that! Instead he says: "who are you to talk back to God? The pot has no right to say to the potter: why did you make me like this?" (I've just noticed that this seems like a reference to that same passage in Isaiah 45).

    Aye, the concept of free will, whatever it is, isn't Biblical at all.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    What I find striking is that the "free will" argument doesn't seem to appear much, if at all, in the Bible. Rather, there is an emphasis on the sovereignty of God - "I bring prosperity and create disaster" (Isaiah 45).

    The most obvious example is perhaps in Romans 9 where Paul is answering the objection: "why does God blame us? For who has resisted his will?". You would expect that if anywhere, this is where the "free will" defence would be rolled out. But Paul doesn't do that! Instead he says: "who are you to talk back to God? The pot has no right to say to the potter: why did you make me like this?" (I've just noticed that this seems like a reference to that same passage in Isaiah 45).

    Paul could have gone two ways there. He could have gone the free will route, dismissing their objection on logical grounds ("What do you mean, you don't resist God's will? I saw you at that bar last week"). That's what you are saying he did not do, and you infer that he did not do it because he did not believe it. But there's another reason why he might not have chosen to have that discussion at that exact moment, and that is pastoral motivation.

    Paul is concerned not only for their logic but for their behavior, their morality, their attitudes. And "Why does God blame us? It's his fault, after all" brings out the roaring lion in Paul--or maybe I should say the extremely concerned apostle, watching his people fuck up attitudinally. That's why he chooses to address what seems to him a more pressing issue than logic and free will--the issue which is the utterly shocking (to him; maybe not to modern Westerners)--the utterly shocking attempt of creatures to throw the blame on God. (Which is in itself an expression of free will, but I digress.)

    To Paul, at that particular point in his writing, the issue that needed addressing was precisely the same one Prospero addresses when his daughter backtalks to him in the Tempest, and he replies, "What, my foot my tutor?" It's basically the "how dare you" of a parent to a child, a master to a student, a king to a subject. I imagine this is probably the least popular point in all of Paul's writings, at least in the modern West, but Paul and Paul's hearers would have thought very differently. Placing the blame on God is both illogical and immoral, as Paul sees it, and here he chooses to address the immorality issue first. And he does it by dragging their argument out to the nth degree, by making it ("Doesn't the potter...? What if God...?") and showing that, even in those extreme cases, we have no right to mouth off.

    tl;dr: If Paul doesn't raise the free will argument at that point, it's because he had other more important fish to fry.

    It's because the concept didn't exist. The fish he was frying were the Jews, who refused to hear the gospel of universal salvation.
  • Really, what do you expect from God?

    Not creating a Forbidden Tree, thus setting us up to fail, in the first place?

    You know, this sounds remarkably whiney to my mother's ears. "You shouldn't have left the cookies out, you knew I'd eat them!" "Why didn't you wash my band shirt for me, I need it today and the teacher's going to be mad at me!" "I didn't ASK to be born!"

    Seriously, do y'all WANT a playpen world in which you never have to make a significant decision and in which there are no consequences, ever, no matter what you do? A world where nothing matters, where we never grow or learn because our Sky Daddy bails us out instantly every time we fuck up. Much like Trump's father, in fact. Hmmmmmm.




  • Really, what do you expect from God?

    Not creating a Forbidden Tree, thus setting us up to fail, in the first place?

    You know, this sounds remarkably whiney to my mother's ears. "You shouldn't have left the cookies out, you knew I'd eat them!" "Why didn't you wash my band shirt for me, I need it today and the teacher's going to be mad at me!" "I didn't ASK to be born!"

    Seriously, do y'all WANT a playpen world in which you never have to make a significant decision and in which there are no consequences, ever, no matter what you do? A world where nothing matters, where we never grow or learn because our Sky Daddy bails us out instantly every time we fuck up. Much like Trump's father, in fact. Hmmmmmm.

    There are plenty of ways to screw up without sin. Walking too close to the cliff edge, for example.
  • Yes, but we weren’t discussing those, were we?
  • This quite clearly has other applications beyond sin:
    Seriously, do y'all WANT a playpen world in which you never have to make a significant decision and in which there are no consequences, ever, no matter what you do?
  • If we so desire, we can use the concept of Original Sin much like Nature/Nurture; as an attempt to dodge personal responsibility.

    Whether we believe in God or not, the challenge is to rise above our origins.
  • Seriously, do y'all WANT a playpen world in which you never have to make a significant decision and in which there are no consequences, ever, no matter what you do? A world where nothing matters, where we never grow or learn because our Sky Daddy bails us out instantly every time we fuck up. Much like Trump's father, in fact. Hmmmmmm.

    Sounds good to me. Triply so if the “consequences” consist of sadness, pain, death and eternal damnation.
  • Bill_Noble wrote: »
    Whether we believe in God or not, the challenge is to rise above our origins.

    Why?
  • Bill_Noble wrote: »
    Whether we believe in God or not, the challenge is to rise above our origins.

    Why?

    Well, how about for the sake of the economy/ to buy more stuff/ put one over on the neighbours (local or national) / to loose that prehensile tail/ get opposable thumbs / a raise/ whatever.

    I assume that you have a to-do list?

    Well, there’s your aspirations right there. Go you. 😉

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Bill_Noble wrote: »
    Whether we believe in God or not, the challenge is to rise above our origins.

    Why?

    Because living in a cave beating each other over the head with mammoth bones and dying of old age at 45 with a mouth full of painfully abscessed teeth really sucks.
  • Bill_Noble wrote: »
    I assume that you have a to-do list?

    Operational (i.e. "buy milk, pick kids up from nursery"), yes.
    Strategic (i.e. "where do you see yourself in five years?*"), no.

    .

    *= I'd love, just once, to be able to answer that with "in a position where I never have to answer that stupid fucking question ever again".
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Because living in a cave beating each other over the head with mammoth bones and dying of old age at 45 with a mouth full of painfully abscessed teeth really sucks.

    Although we can all choose to behave like trolls when the mood and adrenaline takes us.

  • Bill_Noble wrote: »
    I assume that you have a to-do list?

    Operational (i.e. "buy milk, pick kids up from nursery"), yes.
    Strategic (i.e. "where do you see yourself in five years?*"), no.

    .

    *= I'd love, just once, to be able to answer that with "in a position where I never have to answer that stupid fucking question ever again".

    I hear you, and COVID has tossed many of us into exactly the same position; living far more hand-to-mouth than we ever dreamed/feared.

    Even 8 hours sleep counts as a small victory.

  • Bill_NobleBill_Noble Shipmate
    edited January 14
    Sometimes the hardest thing is just to put one foot in front of the other; to be upbeat and optimistic and strong for the sake of others.

    And I have no idea where the strength to do that comes from and there have been times in my own life where I have spectacularly failed to maintain it.

    But I’m still here. Objectively, things still suck, but I’m here.

    Apologies for the OT post.
Sign In or Register to comment.