Frank Apisa wrote:
Whew! I was really worried there. I know you to be a reasonable poster -- and I just could not be sure if you were serious or mixing serious with a bit of fooling around. I feel much, much better now.
Nah, many people take religion way to seriously IMO. Why can't it be discussed without brow-beating, fire and brimstone?
They were simply told "You can do anything except X." and doing anything other then "X" is not a sin. Doing "X", for any reason and with any intent, is a sin.
Were you privy to a discussion that never got reported in the Bible?
The Bibles I have (I have 15 of them; Catholic, Protestant; and Jewish) only say that if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil -- they would die.
It gets a little cloudy here! Some Bibles say that they will die the same day they eat of the fruit; some just say they will die (indeterminant); and some seem to indicate that if they eat the fruit, the same day they will have sealed their doom for some future point.
But at no point do I see any explanation given to them about sin.
Can you flesh out your thoughts on that.
Well, you may have misread what I was saying. Acording to the bibles I've read they were told they could do anything they chose to do in Eden with the exception of eating from the Tree of knowledge.
Genisis 2:15 through 2:17 says:
"The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." " (This is from the "New International Version" of the Bible.)
Anyway, so the Tree of Good and Evil is "X". The rest of the prior comment was all MY words, not anything from the bible. It is my explanation of the meaning of the first statement - not quotes.
That being said, we don't know how "God" looks at the value of any given sin other than in the broadest terms. If a person commits a sin and is unaware that the action is "bad" the punishment may be very different from another person who knowingly commits the same sin. This is where "good" and "bad" may play into things but in either case the sin is still there.
Could be -- but once again, we both agree that they did not know the difference between good and bad; moral and evil -- and their punishment is considered the most severe punishment the god ever is recorded as inflicting.
Not only were they thrown our of what is nominally paradise, they were caused to suffer -- and every human being ever born after them had to share their punishment.
So while your argument sounds good without reflection -- after taking into consideration the punishment and the fact that they did not know good from evil -- it really falls flat.
Their punishment may be the most severe ever recorded but then we don't really know what other punishments he could have come up with do we? If, as the bible claims, God is omnipotent, he surely could have come up with something worse than what we have. He could have left out any possibility for any form of redemption as a starter.
But of course the paragraph you are commenting on here has nothing to do with the original question of whether or not a sin was committed. It all deals with post-sin retribution.
Your ratinale for saying it wasn't a sin is the equeal of a "not guilty by reason of insantity" verdict in a murder trial. That verdict however, doesn't say that no one was killed. In fact it implicitly acknowledges that someone was
killed but the verdict holds that that the person who did the killing can't be held responsible for their actions.
In my view, sin holds the same way. Commiting the sin and teh determination of whether or not there is retribution to paid for doing so are two seperate items.