Eden. Original Sin or Original Virtue?

[Greatest I am]

Eden. Original Sin or Original Virtue?


---------

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/20/comparative-theodicy/

“Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue, the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants’.”

---------

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/original_sin.html

From John Galt's speech, in Atlas Shrugged.

“What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.

Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.”


Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Gen 3;22 And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil;


Do you see Eden as our Original Sin or as our Original Virtue?


Regards

DL

 

[Katzpur]

Do you see Eden as our Original Sin or as our Original Virtue?

Sort of. I see "the Fall" as the actually being the beginning of an ascent.

 

[Akivah]

Eating the apple showed that humans are supposed to earn their bread, we don't thrive when we are simply fed.

 

[Greatest I am]

Sort of. I see "the Fall" as the actually being the beginning of an ascent.

What a strange view. You have us falling upwards. Strange language.

What part of the story was our fall and what part our ascent?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Eating the apple showed that humans are supposed to earn their bread, we don't thrive when we are simply fed.

That put's you in the Jewish camp on Eden.

I too agree with an elevation and not a fall.

Regards
DL

 

[viole]

Eden. Original Sin or Original Virtue?


---------

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/20/comparative-theodicy/

“Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue, the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants’.”

---------

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/original_sin.html

From John Galt's speech, in Atlas Shrugged.

“What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.

Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.”


Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Gen 3;22 And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil;


Do you see Eden as our Original Sin or as our Original Virtue?


Regards

DL

Well, without orignal sin, Jesus would have been unemployed.

Ciao

- viole

 

[DawudTalut]

Peace be on all.
According to Ahmadiyya Muslims, God made human for His worship [worship which should lead to kindness to His creature].....It is virtue.
Jesus (on whom be peace) like other Prophets of God, too came for this purpose. When faced problems, he migrated to Kashmir and continued his message of Oneness of God and human rights.

 

[Tumah]

Eden. Original Sin or Original Virtue?


---------

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/20/comparative-theodicy/

“Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue, the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants’.”

I don't believe that article is completely accurate in explaining the position of Judaism.

For example:

Jews have always seen humans as mortal beings.​

Compare that with the Talmud

Four died [because] of the advice of the snake (ie. not from their own sin) and these are them: Benjamin son of Jacob, Amram father of Moses, Jesse father of David and Caleb the son of David. These are all [known] by [Oral] transmission, besides for Jesse father of David [about whom] the verse mentions is expressly. As it says, "And Amsa was the son of a man and his name was Ithra the Israelite, who came to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, the sister of Zeruia the daughter of Joab. (2 Sam. 17:25)" And was she the daughter of Nahash? She was the daughter of Jesse as it says, "and their sisters were Zeruia and Abigail... (1 Chron. 2:16)". Rather she is the daughter of the one who died [because] of the advice of the snake (Nahash is snake in Hebrew).​

And Rashi (11th century) on this passage:

[Because] of the advice of the snake: ...Meaning to say, they were not deserving to die (of their own sin) except that death was decreed on all the progeny of the First Man (and so they had to die).​

 

[Katzpur]

What a strange view. You have us falling upwards. Strange language.

Yeah, well, it's the Mormon view, so of course it's "strange." I don't have us falling upwards, though. I just believe that the so-called "Fall of Adam" was essential to God's plan, a plan which ultimately included our growth and eternal progression. The Fall was, therefore, a "feliz culpa, a "fortunate fall." The Paschal Vigil Mass refers to the fall thus: O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem, "O happy fault that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer." According to LDS doctrine, the Fall of Adam was understood by the earliest Christians as we Mormons understand it today, and that, over time, the doctrine of "Original Sin" as well as the associated concept of "original guilt" did not really begin to take hold until several centuries after Christ's death, primarily but not solely due to Augustine's writings. Mormons don't see Adam and Eve with the same contempt as most Christians do, and we don't believe in "Original Sin." Yes, we do acknowledge that they disobeyed God and ate the fruit of a tree He had commanded them to abstain from. But they did so in ignorance, not having a knowledge of good and evil until after they ate the forbidden fruit.

What part of the story was our fall and what part our ascent?

The ascent began when they were cast out of Eden and could learn through their own experiences to choose good over evil. It was then that they came to realize that everything has its opposite and that true growth cannot occur in the vacuum that was Eden.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Hello and OMG, I'm very simply delighted that I don't believe for ONE moment that I am responsible for nor the product of somebody else's karma, original or inherited. I might have created some with them, no doubt (!) but I have to own my own stuff and frankly, I'm stuffed full dealing with it, thank you; I don't and won't accept the consequences for any of my ancestors' or relatives' choices, now or going back/forward in time. "Sufficient unto the day," 'n all that and talk about passing on the responsibility for one's actions! Gotta think this through. Jesus said, "Not a jot nor a tittle shall away until the Law is fulfilled...." I believe he is teaching the Law of Karma there, its inexorability (save the injection of God's grace which is abundant) and that Law is also spoken well as, "As you sow, so shall you reap." Not, "As your Daddy sows, so shall you reap." (Snicker. Sorry, probably had too much caffeine this morning. )

Besides, I was never comfortable with the word "sin," how about you all? An aging Westerner who in her youth devoutly sought God in our traditional Western ways was thoroughly inculcated with the negativity of it, that sin stuff, and the consequences attendant thereto. I was experiencing God as Love, I just couldn't reconcile it. So later, when "sin" was translated to me as "error" or ignorance--(not stupid, ignorance. Ignorance is when you don't know the stove is hot and stupid is burning your hand on a hot stove more than... ummmm... saaay, twice for the slow learners .

Anyway, taking the "sting and anxiety" out of my taking the inevitable misstep on the journey really helped me be able to neutrally investigate what all the Masters had to say about it and then do some deep reflection on the nature of desire and "sin" (or error) itself. It's nearly impossible to bring a steady intellect to the party if one keeps goosing it with fear. I suggest questioning the teacher who would do that. It certainly wasn't that Master, Jesus. You know, sometimes a Master's fans want everybody to take shortcuts to the same consciousness the Master enjoys. (Everybody except them, of course.) "Deny this, deny that. But whatever you do, don't examine the nature of desire in its entirety--both attractions AND denials! Because, hush! We can make a lot of moola on assuaging your guilt for even trying...!"

(Where am I? Oh, yeah, this is RF-Debates. Good. I can gently throw down my furry gauntlet without fear. )

 

[Greatest I am]

Well, without orignal sin, Jesus would have been unemployed.

Ciao

- viole

I wonder if that is why the church sang that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary sin.

If necessary and a happy fault, the church has been vilifying women for tempting Adam for nothing as God would have planned for us to sin all along and that is why he put Satan in Eden.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Peace be on all.
According to Ahmadiyya Muslims, God made human for His worship [worship which should lead to kindness to His creature].....It is virtue.
Jesus (on whom be peace) like other Prophets of God, too came for this purpose. When faced problems, he migrated to Kashmir and continued his message of Oneness of God and human rights.

Not to get into it, but if you are a Muslim, you might note that Islam did not get the message.

Your phrasing is slightly confusing to me. Did God create us to worship him or for God to worship man?

I can see where man might want God to worship us but cannot see an all powerful God wanting such lowly creatures worshiping him.

It would be like man wanting ants to worship us. Too silly to even contemplate.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I don't believe that article is completely accurate in explaining the position of Judaism.

For example:

Jews have always seen humans as mortal beings.​

Compare that with the Talmud

Four died [because] of the advice of the snake (ie. not from their own sin) and these are them: Benjamin son of Jacob, Amram father of Moses, Jesse father of David and Caleb the son of David. These are all [known] by [Oral] transmission, besides for Jesse father of David [about whom] the verse mentions is expressly. As it says, "And Amsa was the son of a man and his name was Ithra the Israelite, who came to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, the sister of Zeruia the daughter of Joab. (2 Sam. 17:25)" And was she the daughter of Nahash? She was the daughter of Jesse as it says, "and their sisters were Zeruia and Abigail... (1 Chron. 2:16)". Rather she is the daughter of the one who died [because] of the advice of the snake (Nahash is snake in Hebrew).​

And Rashi (11th century) on this passage:

[Because] of the advice of the snake: ...Meaning to say, they were not deserving to die (of their own sin) except that death was decreed on all the progeny of the First Man (and so they had to die).​

If Jews and Moses did not respect the serpent or mistrusted it in any way, he would not have made a serpent headed staff nor would the totem of the priest class, the Levies, been the serpent.

In that day, serpent worship was widespread and Christianity reversed the moral of Eden that the Jews had in order to vilify those serpent worshiping sects.

This issue I see as a matter of logic.

Can you be a moral man without the knowledge of good and evil?

No you cannot. All you would be is mentally and morally blind just as A & E were before eating of the tree of knowledge and becoming as God in the moral sense.

Do you see that?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Yeah, well, it's the Mormon view, so of course it's "strange." I don't have us falling upwards, though. I just believe that the so-called "Fall of Adam" was essential to God's plan, a plan which ultimately included our growth and eternal progression. The Fall was, therefore, a "feliz culpa, a "fortunate fall." The Paschal Vigil Mass refers to the fall thus: O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem, "O happy fault that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer." According to LDS doctrine, the Fall of Adam was understood by the earliest Christians as we Mormons understand it today, and that, over time, the doctrine of "Original Sin" as well as the associated concept of "original guilt" did not really begin to take hold until several centuries after Christ's death, primarily but not solely due to Augustine's writings. Mormons don't see Adam and Eve with the same contempt as most Christians do, and we don't believe in "Original Sin." Yes, we do acknowledge that they disobeyed God and ate the fruit of a tree He had commanded them to abstain from. But they did so in ignorance, not having a knowledge of good and evil until after they ate the forbidden fruit.

The ascent began when they were cast out of Eden and could learn through their own experiences to choose good over evil. It was then that they came to realize that everything has its opposite and that true growth cannot occur in the vacuum that was Eden.

So God wanted A & E to disobey his command. Right?

That would also be why he put Satan right beside Eve. To insure that they ate. Right?

So where is the fall part if everyone was doing what God wanted?

Surly not the disobedience which would have left A & E too stupid to even reproduce.

I would say the ascent began when their eyes were opened, not when they were cast out of Eden. At least that seems to be what God says.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Hello and OMG, I'm very simply delighted that I don't believe for ONE moment that I am responsible for nor the product of somebody else's karma, original or inherited. I might have created some with them, no doubt (!) but I have to own my own stuff and frankly, I'm stuffed full dealing with it, thank you; I don't and won't accept the consequences for any of my ancestors' or relatives' choices, now or going back/forward in time. "Sufficient unto the day," 'n all that and talk about passing on the responsibility for one's actions! Gotta think this through. Jesus said, "Not a jot nor a tittle shall away until the Law is fulfilled...." I believe he is teaching the Law of Karma there, its inexorability (save the injection of God's grace which is abundant) and that Law is also spoken well as, "As you sow, so shall you reap." Not, "As your Daddy sows, so shall you reap." (Snicker. Sorry, probably had too much caffeine this morning. )

Besides, I was never comfortable with the word "sin," how about you all? An aging Westerner who in her youth devoutly sought God in our traditional Western ways was thoroughly inculcated with the negativity of it, that sin stuff, and the consequences attendant thereto. I was experiencing God as Love, I just couldn't reconcile it. So later, when "sin" was translated to me as "error" or ignorance--(not stupid, ignorance. Ignorance is when you don't know the stove is hot and stupid is burning your hand on a hot stove more than... ummmm... saaay, twice for the slow learners .

Anyway, taking the "sting and anxiety" out of my taking the inevitable misstep on the journey really helped me be able to neutrally investigate what all the Masters had to say about it and then do some deep reflection on the nature of desire and "sin" (or error) itself. It's nearly impossible to bring a steady intellect to the party if one keeps goosing it with fear. I suggest questioning the teacher who would do that. It certainly wasn't that Master, Jesus. You know, sometimes a Master's fans want everybody to take shortcuts to the same consciousness the Master enjoys. (Everybody except them, of course.) "Deny this, deny that. But whatever you do, don't examine the nature of desire in its entirety--both attractions AND denials! Because, hush! We can make a lot of moola on assuaging your guilt for even trying...!"

(Where am I? Oh, yeah, this is RF-Debates. Good. I can gently throw down my furry gauntlet without fear. )

If you ever want to speak to the O.P. instead of yourself, let me know.

Regards
DL

 

[Neo Deist]

Fairy tale at best.

 

[Greatest I am]

Fairy tale at best.

Yes but one that has been used to vilify and subjugate women forever.

He shall rule over you.

At least from the Christian side.

Care to opine on why you think Christianity reversed the original moral of the story from our elevation to our fall?

Regards
DL

 

[Tumah]

If Jews and Moses did not respect the serpent or mistrusted it in any way, he would not have made a serpent headed staff

I don't see the connection here. Moses made the brass snake at the command of G-d after being plagued by snakes, itself a punishment for complaining.
What's that got to do with the snake from the garden of Eden?

nor would the totem of the priest class, the Levies, been the serpent.

I'm not sure what you mean by "totem" here. But perhaps you are referring to the emblem of the tribe of Dan?
Again, what's that got to do with the snake from the garden of Eden?

In that day, serpent worship was widespread and Christianity reversed the moral of Eden that the Jews had in order to vilify those serpent worshiping sects.

I'm not sure I understand this.

This issue I see as a matter of logic.

Can you be a moral man without the knowledge of good and evil?

No you cannot. All you would be is mentally and morally blind just as A & E were before eating of the tree of knowledge and becoming as God in the moral sense.

Do you see that?

Regards
DL

I don't think we have a similar understanding of what the tree causes.
My understanding, is that previously Adam and Eve chose their actions based on logic. Eating from the tree, causes them to desire things, either good or bad. In the same vein we find 2 Sam. 19:36, Barzilai says to David, "I am 80 years old, do I know between good and bad? Do I taste what I eat and what I drink?..." He's saying, that he's too old to desire these things anymore. He eats because he logically understands that he needs to eat, not because he has a desire to eat.
According to your understanding, what does "knowing between good and bad" have to do with Barzilai's age and whether he can enjoy his food?

I don't think that prior to eating, there was a mental or moral blindness. In fact just the opposite, there was a mental clarity unhampered by the desires of the heart and a morality free of selfishness.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

If you ever want to speak to the O.P. instead of yourself, let me know.

Regards
DL

And regards to you, as well. I clearly thought I was addressing the OP (certainly not you, in fact, if this is the sum total of your contributions to the statement of another person's ideas). I'm not actually in the habit of just spouting off, why would I need to? Neither am I the Greatest; I know Who is (and would never claim that title or position for myself). Moving on, I was attempting to advance a rejection of the Judeo-Christian idea--and any other interpretation of the core faiths--which somehow hold me responsible for the actions, choices and consequences of another soul.

 

[Greatest I am]

I don't see the connection here. Moses made the brass snake at the command of G-d after being plagued by snakes, itself a punishment for complaining.
What's that got to do with the snake from the garden of Eden?

Not a thing but a religion will not use an emblem that is disrespected.

I'm not sure what you mean by "totem" here. But perhaps you are referring to the emblem of the tribe of Dan?
Again, what's that got to do with the snake from the garden of Eden?

Same as bolded.

------------

I'm not sure I understand this.

I said, "In that day, serpent worship was widespread"

Seems simple enough.

"and Christianity reversed the moral of Eden that the Jews had in order to vilify those serpent worshiping sects."

Christianity was charged by Constantine to rid his empire of all other cults. That included the many serpent worshiping cults all over the Middle East and up to Ireland and Scotland.

The Jews had the moral of the story as our elevation and Christianity reversed that to our fall.


I don't think we have a similar understanding of what the tree causes.
My understanding, is that previously Adam and Eve chose their actions based on logic.

The tree of knowledge is thought by many to be the tree of basically all knowledge as all knowledge is subject to being either good or evil. Without the knowledge of basically everything, there is nothing that a mind has to apply logic and reason to. So to say A & E had logic would not be correct. If A & E had logic, they would have asked God to explain reproduction way back in Gen 1 when he told them they could do just that.

Eating from the tree, causes them to desire things, either good or bad.

I agree. That was/is important to Jews but Christians never deal with that notion.
Before eating, A & E are without desire and basically brain dead.

This link is slow to go but you may find it interesting.
The part I wish to convey starts at about the 26 min mark.

In the same vein we find 2 Sam. 19:36, Barzilai says to David, "I am 80 years old, do I know between good and bad? Do I taste what I eat and what I drink?..." He's saying, that he's too old to desire these things anymore. He eats because he logically understands that he needs to eat, not because he has a desire to eat.
According to your understanding, what does "knowing between good and bad" have to do with Barzilai's age and whether he can enjoy his food?

If given evil, he would soon learn to desire good. There is likely an esoteric meaning to that story but I am not familiar with it.

I don't think that prior to eating, there was a mental or moral blindness. In fact just the opposite, there was a mental clarity unhampered by the desires of the heart and a morality free of selfishness.

If they were not morally blind, why did they not recognize that they were naked before eating of the tree?

What did God mean when saying their eyes were opened and they became as God in the knowing of good and evil?

Apologies. I did not see a quote function.

Regards
DL