The dilemma of the first sin???

[franksterr]

If before Eve gave Adam the proverbial fruit, they did not know Good and evil, how then can one hold them responsible for their actions, after all they probable did not know what they were doing - disobeying..... was evil
Imagine a child say a few weeks old, do you hold them responsible for their actions?
At what age do you begin to hold a child responsible for their action?
Or is it when the understand or know what they are doing ?

[danske]

Re: The dilemma of the first sin???

The concept of the first sin is indeed interesting. To Adam and Eve, God and Devil would seem the equivalent of two adults. So even if one says not to, the "children" are inclined to go with the "adult" that is willing to indulge. I think the "children" should have been forgiven while the adults thrash it out.

I think a child can be held responsible when he/she has been made aware of the consequence of the action.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: The dilemma of the first sin???

The first sin is one of the most misunderstood statement.

The majority if people Interpret it to mean What it is not.
A hint is it has no relationship to sex.
What I'd your understanding of it?

[franksterr]

Re: The dilemma of the first sin???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The first sin is one of the most misunderstood statement.

The majority if people Interpret it to mean What it is not.
A hint is it has no relationship to sex.
What I'd your understanding of it? </div></div>

To my understanding it has to do with raising or kindling the Kundalini which is a form of sexual energy that allows man to become self-aware.

what do you say it is?

[franksterr]

Re: The dilemma of the first sin???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Danske</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The concept of the first sin is indeed interesting. To Adam and Eve, God and Devil would seem the equivalent of two adults. So even if one says not to, the &quot;children&quot; are inclined to go with the &quot;adult&quot; that is willing to indulge. I think the &quot;children&quot; should have been forgiven while the adults thrash it out.</div></div>

I can go along with that.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think a child can be held responsible when he/she has been made aware of the consequence of the action. </div></div>

For them to be aware, that means they understand? or just that they have been told?

[rudemonk]

Re: The dilemma of the first sin???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Danske</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The concept of the first sin is indeed interesting. To Adam and Eve, God and Devil would seem the equivalent of two adults. So even if one says not to, the &quot;children&quot; are inclined to go with the &quot;adult&quot; that is willing to indulge. I think the &quot;children&quot; should have been forgiven while the adults thrash it out.

I think a child can be held responsible when he/she has been made aware of the consequence of the action. </div></div>

i'd like to give you a cigar.

in apologetics, the crutch is always free will.

however, to have free will, one must be able to understand the consequences of one's actions, in order to be able to choose.

in this case, neither adam nor eve were ever once warned by God- omnipotent omniscient God- that danger lurked in the words and actions of another, nor did they have any concept of Death.

In addition, we have the reason given as to why God acted as he did.

[danske]

Re: The dilemma of the first sin???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think a child can be held responsible when he/she has been made aware of the consequence of the action. </div></div>

For them to be aware, that means they understand? or just that they have been told?

</div></div>

That I believe would have to be determined by age/maturity and the type of action. A simple order like &quot;do not hit you 1 yr old brother&quot; to a 4yr old, is sufficient to just be told, but &quot;do not have unprotected sex&quot; to a fifteen yr old would require more than just being told. IMO.

[danske]

Re: The dilemma of the first sin???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Danske</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The concept of the first sin is indeed interesting. To Adam and Eve, God and Devil would seem the equivalent of two adults. So even if one says not to, the &quot;children&quot; are inclined to go with the &quot;adult&quot; that is willing to indulge. I think the &quot;children&quot; should have been forgiven while the adults thrash it out.

I think a child can be held responsible when he/she has been made aware of the consequence of the action. </div></div>

i'd like to give you a cigar.

in apologetics, the crutch is always free will.

however, to have free will, one must be able to understand the consequences of one's actions, in order to be able to choose.

in this case, neither adam nor eve were ever once warned by God- omnipotent omniscient God- that danger lurked in the words and actions of another, nor did they have any concept of Death.

In addition, we have the reason given as to why God acted as he did. </div></div>

Hand rolled? Yup.

Doubt you can give free will to a person who don't know wrong from right, and I doubt they would have gone that route with their free will. I am inclined to believe that they would only have had free will after (if ever) to be penitent or to be proud.

[Diplomat]

Re: The dilemma of the first sin???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If before Eve gave Adam the proverbial fruit, they did not know Good and evil, how then can one hold them responsible for their actions, after all they probable did not know what they were doing - disobeying..... was evil
Imagine a child say a few weeks old, do you hold them responsible for their actions?
At what age do you begin to hold a child responsible for their action?
Or is it when the understand or know what they are doing ? </div></div>
The question is somewhat flawed because it presumes &quot;good and evil&quot; are to be understood to mean different moral values of right and wrong. In contrast, the expression &quot;good and evil&quot; is a Hebraic idiom of sorts which means &quot;to know everything,&quot; a usage which was commonly understood in the Ancient Near East as it was also used in the language and literature of other cultures at that time. So it wasn't so much about knowing the difference between right and wrong then as it was Adam &amp; Eve having obtained a higher form of knowledge that transcended what they would have been &quot;entitled&quot; to at that point in their history.

[f0rTyLeGz]

Re: The dilemma of the first sin???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ChurchDude</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...The expression &quot;good and evil&quot; is a Hebraic idiom of sorts which means &quot;to know everything,&quot; a usage which was commonly understood in the Ancient Near East as it was also used in the language and literature of other cultures at that time. So it wasn't so much about knowing the difference between right and wrong then as it was Adam &amp; Eve having obtained a higher form of knowledge that transcended what they would have been &quot;entitled&quot; to at that point in their history. </div></div>
So Adam and Eve covered their nakedness because they got educated more than they were entitled to?

[Diplomat]

Re: The dilemma of the first sin???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: f0rTyLeGz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ChurchDude</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...The expression &quot;good and evil&quot; is a Hebraic idiom of sorts which means &quot;to know everything,&quot; a usage which was commonly understood in the Ancient Near East as it was also used in the language and literature of other cultures at that time. So it wasn't so much about knowing the difference between right and wrong then as it was Adam &amp; Eve having obtained a higher form of knowledge that transcended what they would have been &quot;entitled&quot; to at that point in their history. </div></div>
So Adam and Eve covered their nakedness because they got educated more than they were entitled to? </div></div>
I wouldn't put it that way. However, the knowledge they obtained certainly made them aware of their physical nakedness. &quot;And he [God]said, 'Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?'&quot; (Genesis 3:11, NIV). Prior to that, they were fine (Genesis 2:25). Let's not miss the upside of their actions though. Their capacity to acknowledge guilt and transgression - something they didn't have before - is now affirmed and in a lot of ways, valued.

[quodlibet]

Re: The dilemma of the first sin???

Was it the gaining of the knowledge that was wrong, or the disobedience?

If the act of disobedience was wrong, does it matter if you know the reason behind the instruction to obey in the first place?

[franksterr]

Re: The dilemma of the first sin???


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The question is somewhat flawed because it presumes &quot;good and evil&quot; are to be understood to mean different moral values of right and wrong</div></div>

Please explain further?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In contrast, the expression &quot;good and evil&quot; is a Hebraic idiom of sorts which means &quot;to know everything,&quot; a usage which was commonly understood in the Ancient Near East as it was also used in the language and literature of other cultures at that time.</div></div>

So did they become all-knowing?
If it was The “Tree of Knowledge” only, it seems to me would be more appropriate with your meaning of “ to know everything”.
Instead it is the “tree of Knowledge of good and evil” meaning that they now “know everything” about good and evil, in other words they have been given a conscience.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So it wasn't so much about knowing the difference between right and wrong then as it was Adam &amp; Eve having obtained a higher form of knowledge that transcended what they would have been &quot;entitled&quot; to at that point in their history</div></div>

Yes and that knowledge was the ability to discern between good and evil, plus and minus, 1 &amp; 0 , before that they were instinctive creatures, beast of the fields, not knowing they were naked –not self aware. Up till that point all they knew was Good.

Are you saying The term ”good and evil” has nothing to do with doing good or doing evil?

[franksterr]

Re: The dilemma of the first sin???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Was it the gaining of the knowledge that was wrong, or the disobedience?

If the act of disobedience was wrong, does it matter if you know the reason behind the instruction to obey in the first place? </div></div>

They gaining of the knowledge was threatening, the sin or evil would then have been disobedience.

The God of the bible demands blind obedience, hence the reason their eyes were open after the first act of human disobedience.

[quodlibet]

Re: The dilemma of the first sin???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
They gaining of the knowledge was threatening, the sin or evil would then have been disobedience.

<span style="font-weight: bold">The God of the bible demands blind obedience</span>, hence the reason their eyes were open after the first act of human disobedience. </div></div>

Why do you state this, do you have anything to back this up besides the interpretation of some preacher?

I know of the verse that says &quot;To obey is better than the sacrifice of rams&quot;, etc - but I am also aware of the verse that says &quot;Come let us reason together saith the Lord&quot;...