Original Sin

[doppelganger]

satan was a liar from the beginning. It was not true, that as we are, we are unlike god without the knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge of good and evil is not knowledge but perception based on arbitrary judgment. In that arbitrary instant the wholeness or holiness of the kingdom is shattered perceptually. An error in perception does not change the real view, it just makes it obscure, hard to identify.

I think that's a fair way of putting it, though in the story it isn't "Satan," it's "the serpent."

But let me ask you this: What exactly was the lie that the serpent told? Does "God" "know good and evil"?

 

[sojourner]

I do not believe there ever is a full disconnect, our souls are always part of/connected to, God.
Sin comes when we disconnect our selves from communion with God.
God never disconnects from us.


Nor do I agree that there is an "Inherent" disconnect beteen us and God.

Even though we are human and God is Divine? Wasn't that the reason for the Incarnation? God becoming one of us in order to reconcile us to God's Self?

Genesis tells us that we are made in God's image -- not that we are made God. I think that explicitly outlines an understanding of a fundamental difference between us. It's a difference that caused us to have that knowledge of good and evil that caused us to further separate, no?

 

[sojourner]

so god wants trained animals?

I don't understand where you're coming from here. If God wanted trained animals, God would have made trained animals. As it was, God made us to have free will. That free will (as Dopp says) forces us to create a barrier. (I think this is where Terry and I are not seeing eye to eye.) It's got nothing to do with "doing the right thing." It's about developing the proper perspective.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

In one view, original sin is not when Eva ate the forbidden fruit, and it is not related to sexual intercourse, or some kind of stain humans are born with, but it is alienation from God, creation, and each other.

The 'cure' for original sin, thus, is to overcome that alienation. In this interpretation love is the means of atonement - at-one-ment.

Nice thought.
Some people miss the first sin in the bible. It is when Eve is talking to the Serpent and says

[3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

The lie is the first sin, and it is at that point death entered mankind. God never said, not to touch it.

Just a fun fact for the conversation.

 

[sojourner]

I think that's a fair way of putting it, though in the story it isn't "Satan," it's "the serpent."

But let me ask you this: What exactly was the lie that the serpent told? Does "God" "know good and evil"?

Indeed! In the Genesis account, the serpent does not lie. From a literary standpoint, the serpent symbolizes wisdom, and is congruent with other, similar stories of Sumerian and Babylonian origin, where Wisdom is a trickster. Genesis isn't a story of sin -- it's a story of coming-of-age.

 

[lunamoth]

Indeed! In the Genesis account, the serpent does not lie. From a literary standpoint, the serpent symbolizes wisdom, and is congruent with other, similar stories of Sumerian and Babylonian origin, where Wisdom is a trickster. Genesis isn't a story of sin -- it's a story of coming-of-age.

And along these lines, the first sin described in the Bible is not found until the story of Cain and Abel.

 

[waitasec]

I don't understand where you're coming from here. If God wanted trained animals, God would have made trained animals. As it was, God made us to have free will. That free will (as Dopp says) forces us to create a barrier. (I think this is where Terry and I are not seeing eye to eye.) It's got nothing to do with "doing the right thing." It's about developing the proper perspective.

it seems as though god wants trained animals...
the dog has free will...how is it trained...? by the use of fear and reward...
the animal has the free will to choose to either obey (and get a reward) or face a negative consequence for not obeying.

 

[sojourner]

it seems as though god wants trained animals...
the dog has free will...how is it trained...? by the use of fear and reward...
the animal has the free will to choose to either obey (and get a reward) or face a negative consequence for not obeying.

I still don't see your point. "Punishment" and "reward" are not part of the paradigm here. At all.

 

[waitasec]

I still don't see your point. "Punishment" and "reward" are not part of the paradigm here. At all.

sure it is...
what is the reward...eternal life
what is the punishment...death.

 

[thedope]

I think that's a fair way of putting it, though in the story it isn't "Satan," it's "the serpent."

I use the term satan to describe the slanderous nature of the accusation.

But let me ask you this: What exactly was the lie that the serpent told? Does "God" "know good and evil"?

We were created to create the good. The perception of evil is a determination of blind sensation, a form defined by negative space. Before that single instant of arbitrary perception, mans native talent of naming the animals was sufficient and good for the purpose of assessing reality, and it still is. The distortion comes when we use that same definitive power of discernment to evaluate the animals.
Our power of discernment is divining of what is the same and what is different, not which is higher of lower except as a directional measurement in relation to a stationary orientation to baseline. As soon as our measuring device no longer has the certitude of equanimity then our capacity for appreciation suffers as we begin to care more or less, rather than regard the world carefully.

Gods judgment is only ever good. God does not posses bad judgment.

 

[sojourner]

And along these lines, the first sin described in the Bible is not found until the story of Cain and Abel.

Well ... it is also in the eating of the fruit. The commandment had been given and was disobeyed. But I think we're arguing two different concepts here. I'm not speaking about sin as action so much as perception. Eve could not have disobeyed unless she was completely self-actualized. It's that self-actualization inherent in the human being that makes us "sinful" or "separate" from God. However, the sin in this sense does not carry the heavy, guilt-baggage we normally assign to it. It's just "the way we are made." Our "job" is to live fully into our selves and then approach God to the end that we will live fully in God.

Animals live "in God" because they are true to their nature. They can do no other. But animals are not sentient to the degree human beings are sentient. We have been given a greater capacity that we have to learn how to use. Our relationship with God is more complete than other creatures.

 

[lunamoth]

Well ... it is also in the eating of the fruit.

I get somewhat more mileage out of the idea that eating the fruit was not sin, but sin is evidenced by the judgment that followed: shame (judging oneself) and blame (judging each other).

 

[thedope]

Animals live "in God" because they are true to their nature. They can do no other. But animals are not sentient to the degree human beings are sentient. We have been given a greater capacity that we have to learn how to use. Our relationship with God is more complete than other creatures.

Nor can gods son be other than god created, but surely he can be deceived. We are self actualized when we let our answer be yes or no. As long as there is debate, the jury is out.

 

[sojourner]

Nor can gods son be other than god created, but surely he can be deceived. We are self actualized when we let our answer be yes or no. As long as there is debate, the jury is out.

God didn't create God's Son. God begat God's Son. And I don't see that Jesus has anything whatsoever to do with the precise issue at hand.

 

[sojourner]

I get somewhat more mileage out of the idea that eating the fruit was not sin, but sin is evidenced by the judgment that followed: shame (judging oneself) and blame (judging each other).

It's a fine line of distinction. I tend to talk about sin as that essence of us that makes us separate beings from God, which would include the ability for us to go against our programming (that of obedience). But I see what you're saying, and I could lean that way, too, on any given weekday.

 

[thedope]

God didn't create God's Son. God begat God's Son. And I don't see that Jesus has anything whatsoever to do with the precise issue at hand.

God created man in his own image and likeness, male and female. In this scenario male and female are creative principle. It is from this perspective that I say son of god, or child of god. The statement is not from the perspective that there are different types of men, i, e. man and wo-man. We are not talking about new testament symbolism, but creation story symbolism, wherein lies, the parameters of original sin.

 

[sojourner]

God created man in his own image and likeness, male and female. In this scenario male and female are creative principle. It is from this perspective that I say son of god, or child of god. The statement is not from the perspective that there are different types of men, i, e. man and wo-man. We are not talking about new testament symbolism, but creation story symbolism, wherein lies, the parameters of original sin.

It would be nice if that were a proper exegesis of the text. But the text plainly says ish and ishah. That is creation story symbolism. I just don't think you can exegete from the text what you have.

 

[thedope]

It would be nice if that were a proper exegesis of the text. But the text plainly says ish and ishah. That is creation story symbolism. I just don't think you can exegete from the text what you have.

I don't know what it means ish and isha.

That you do not think I can interpret the way I have, does not recognize the fact that I have. That I have, simply means that the words have been placed within a theoretical scaffold that is unfamiliar to you. However the model I refer to is consistently applied throughout. In other words, it is a model that fits.

I read two different creation stories which paint divergent models of creation. One I would call an energetic model and the other a homo-centric or egocentric model.

In one model man is free creative principle entering a world complete where nothing is required of him. We arrive at the epoch of the sabbath. The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.

The other model takes shape after god caused a deep sleep to come over adam, from which he has yet to awaken from broadly. During hypnotic sleep man dreams a new version of man in which man is made from dust and woman is a different kind of subservient man. It is the vision of patriarchal order. Guilt becomes the basis for the perceived antipathy from the world itself.

 

[sojourner]

I don't know what it means ish and isha.

That you do not think I can interpret the way I have, does not recognize the fact that I have. That I have, simply means that the words have been placed within a theoretical scaffold that is unfamiliar to you. However the model I refer to is consistently applied throughout. In other words, it is a model that fits.

I read two different creation stories which paint divergent models of creation. One I would call an energetic model and the other a homo-centric or egocentric model.

In one model man is free creative principle entering a world complete where nothing is required of him. We arrive at the epoch of the sabbath. The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.

The other model takes shape after god caused a deep sleep to come over adam, from which he has yet to awaken from broadly. During hypnotic sleep man dreams a new version of man in which man is made from dust and woman is a different kind of subservient man. It is the vision of patriarchal order. Guilt becomes the basis for the perceived antipathy from the world itself.

Ish and ishah are the Hebrew words found there for "Male" and "female." Therefore, it's not proper exegesis to say that, in creation symbolism, we're not talking about man and woman -- because we clearly are.

Just because you have done it, does not mean that you have done it properly and that it will hold up under close scrutiny. I could teach a class, but if I don't teach the class within the parameters of the accepted teaching standards, then my teaching has come to nothing. Since your interpretation does not take advantage of a proper exegesis, it may be an entertaining exercise, but it ultimately doesn't amount to much.

 

[Gloone]

In one view, original sin is not when Eva ate the forbidden fruit, and it is not related to sexual intercourse, or some kind of stain humans are born with, but it is alienation from God, creation, and each other.

The 'cure' for original sin, thus, is to overcome that alienation. In this interpretation love is the means of atonement - at-one-ment.

Seems to be a common theme throughout the bible all the way to Jesus' death.