our mortality is a punishment from God for Adam's & Eve's disobedience — Agent Smith

First, it should be noted that this is not a Christian story. Original sin is an interpretation that originated long after the story had been told and interpreted for generation after generation.

As with many things in the Genesis stories, mortality is both a blessing and a curse. There is a difference between being sentenced to death and being prevented from becoming immortal. God makes it clear why he prevented them from eating of the tree of life and living forever:

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

(3:22)

There is a connection here between knowledge and death. Without death there would be no end to the evil that make may do and suffer.

But what God says to Cain makes it clear that we are not born evil:

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

(4:6-7)

mortality is both a blessing and a curse. — Fooloso4

True!

The rest of your post: Muddled, but that's human! Who wants to be Mr. Spock? Anyone?

The rest of your post: Muddled — Agent Smith

I take it you do not see a distinction between being sentenced to death and being prevented from living forever. You make a distinction between someone being put to death and the rest of us dying. It should be noted that Cain was not put to death for killing his brother.

God does not want man to become gods. They have already become godlike with knowledge of good and evil. With immortality they would become gods. Some might think this would be a good thing, but it might mean endless war and the oppressive rule of deathless kings.

When God tells Cain that sin is crouching and he must rule over it, he is saying something quite different than what the concept of original sin says. We are not born evil. We can rule over sin.

It bears mentioning though that I've heard of judicial sentences of even 300 years (multiple life sentences), an attempt, in my humble opinion, to highlight the severity of an offense. — Agent Smith

It's merely the result of being convicted of more than one crime, for each of which a sentence is imposed. So, you sometimes hear of sentences being served concurrently, and sometimes you hear of them being served consecutively. Consecutive sentences can add up to any number of years, and sometimes have no practical effect.

1. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy et all (serial killers) were all sentenced to death and they were all evil. — Agent Smith

This indicates only that in their cases they were sentenced to death and were evil. It doesn't establish that those sentenced to death are all evil, or that those who are evil are all sentenced to death.

:100:

God does not want man to become gods. They have already become godlike with knowledge of good and evil. With immortality they would become gods. — Fooloso4

:fire:

An argument from analogy for original sin:

1. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy et all (serial killers) were all sentenced to death and they were all evil.

2. Every one of us is sentenced to death (we're mortal)

Ergo,

3. Every one of us is evil.

4. This evil we're all guilty of is called original sin in Christianity. — Agent Smith

Christians will call this a transgression to God (See Luther's Smallcald Articles). The evil here is qualified in this way.
Also, this is affirming the consequent, a fallacy in logic. You are saying we are all sentenced to death BECAUSE we are evil: if you are evil you will be sentenced to death, we are sentenced to death; therefore we are evil. Is this your thinking?

Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy et all (serial killers) were all sentenced to death and they were all evil. — Agent Smith

They were sentenced to immortality prior to being sentenced to death

Yep, seems sound to me. There's no need to invoke Christianity, however. One can arrive at the conclusion by reason alone, as I have done.

An all powerful, all knowing, all good person would not create people like us, that is people who are evilly disposed. So he hasn't. We can, by rational reflection, discover this. (I mean, it makes no sense to think God created us - what possible good would be achieved by it that God, an omnipotent being, could not have achieved directly?).

Thus God exists and so too do a lot of evilly disposed people. God did not create them. God would not create anyone, for a good person does not impose on others without their prior consent. So, God would not create anyone, much less evilly disposed ignorant people like ourselves.

And God would also not let innocent people live in ignorance in a world like this one. So he hasn't. We aren't innocent, then.

We must have attempted to do something wrong and God dealt with us: thus here we are. We are not loved by God, but hated by him. If you love someone you don't make them ignorant and then exile them in a dangerous place. If, however, someone attempts to harm those God loves then God may well - and it seems has - made those folk (us) ignorant and exiled them to a dangerous place to languish in each other's horrible company.

And if we wonder what sort of thing one could have done to deserve to live here, one need only look to those who procreate for an answer. For those people knew exactly what kind of a place this was yet freely decided to subject what they took to be an innocent person to a life of ignorance in it. That is, they knew that this was a world in which every conceivable harm can befall anyone at any time, knew it was a world containing the like of Ted Bundy, and that this was a world in which chance distributes most harms and benefits, yet decided for their own self-indulgent reasons to bring an innocent person into it! They also knew that anyone they bring here would die, and so they committed manslaughter as well. They, by that act, show that they deserve to be here and that they are simply being done by as they did. They pat themselves on the back and tell themselves they're excellent and loving parents, blithely ignoring the fact they've sentenced what they think was an innocent person to life in a prison that ends in death - which is no loving act at all! And then they wonder why God allows bad things to happen to them. "Because God loathes you and doesn't care what happens to you, that's why!"
Needless to say, we can safely assume that procreators will be doing another life stretch for every one of the life stretches they freely subjected others to and then another just for good measure. Terrible people.

The intuition of original sin is then sound, oui? After all, we put people who're really bad to death and so if we too die, irrespective of how good/bad we are, we must be guilty of some evil, an evil so horrific that death is the only redress; this evil, in Christianity, is termed original sin. — Agent Smith

And pray tell, friend, what was the deed that is regarded as original sin?

First, it should be noted that this is not a Christian story. Original sin is an interpretation that originated long after the story had been told and interpreted for generation after generation. — Fooloso4

Ah, but more importantly, God was so evil to have eternally damned a creation of his to suffer for doing nothing more than pursuing wisdom.

As with many things in the Genesis stories, mortality is both a blessing and a curse. There is a difference between being sentenced to death and being prevented from becoming immortal. God makes it clear why he prevented them from eating of the tree of life and living forever — Fooloso4

And some of us were silly enough to believe it, and then proceed to murder vast swathes of humans for it.

The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Hmm, "us?" Also, why must not? Would that have harmed God, or was it just a sort of inexplicable desire? There doesn't appear to be an argument there on God's part.

Who wants to be Mr. Spock? Anyone? — Agent Smith

Sure, why not?

I take it you do not see a distinction between being sentenced to death and being prevented from living forever. — Fooloso4

I didn't/I don't. The two are equivalent. In both cases the persons in question die, oui?

God does not want man to become gods. — Fooloso4

:up: Like the tower of Babel story shows, God doesn't want us anywhere near Him and that includes paradise. Why then are we trying to go there by being (so) good? We would be unwelcome guests for sure.

I have a theory: Morality is, I believe, an unsolvable puzzle and God knows, very well, that humans will never get to the bottom of what good and evil are. Hence, he puts down one condition for citizenship in his kingdom of heaven: be moral, avoid immorality. It's like the time when Buddha sent Kisa Gotami to fetch him some mustard from a house that has not known death if he is to resurrect her dead son; she couldn't of course for it was an impossible task. :chin: :sad:

We are not born evil. We can rule over sin. — Fooloso4

How do you know we're not born evil? Are we not ignorant as babes, isn't ignorance (avidya) the prime evil? I'm doing a mashup of religions.

It's merely the result of being convicted of more than one crime, for each of which a sentence is imposed. So, you sometimes hear of sentences being served concurrently, and sometimes you hear of them being served consecutively. Consecutive sentences can add up to any number of years, and sometimes have no practical effect — Ciceronianus

Thanks for edifying me on the matter.

I don't see the logic of serving concurrent sentences though. Does it mean if I kill two people, I get only one life sentence, assuming they don't send me to the gallows? I hope the judicial system is as merciful as that. :pray:

It doesn't establish that those sentenced to death are all evil, or that those who are evil are all sentenced to death. — Ciceronianus

A fine point. My reply would be that the intent of the law is to put extremely evil people to death. This, I suppose, explaining why I drew the conclusion that those who have been executed are really bad people. Everybody makes mistakes. Can we afford to in the case of the death penalty?

Christians will call this a transgression to God (See Luther's Smallcald Articles). The evil here is qualified in this way.
Also, this is affirming the consequent, a fallacy in logic. You are saying we are all sentenced to death BECAUSE we are evil: if you are evil you will be sentenced to death, we are sentenced to death; therefore we are evil. Is this your thinking? — Constance

An argument from analogy doesn't have anything to do with modus ponens last I checked. I could be wrong and, now that I think of it, your point seems to make complete sense. Please sort it out and lemme know if that's not too much trouble. Thanks.

They were sentenced to immortality prior to being sentenced to death — InvoluntaryDecorum

Isn't that like saying someone was sent on an all-paid vacation to the Bahamas as a disciplinary measure? :chin:

Could immoratlity be a form of punishment? Sisyphus comes to mind - make an immortal's life a pointless one and s/he will beg for death!

Tithonus was granted immortality, but not eternal youth! "What do you want?" isn't a question that can be answered carelessly. Reminds of genies & the regular 3 wishss they grant (I'm reading The Arabian Nights).

Yep, seems sound to me. There's no need to invoke Christianity, however. One can arrive at the conclusion by reason alone, as I have done. — Bartricks

:up:

The rest of your post, par excellence!

And pray tell, friend, what was the deed that is regarded as original sin? — Garrett Travers

Disobedience is the standard answer, compounded by knowledge (of good and evil). A double sin. See Fooloso4's post (vide supra).

Sure, why not? — Garrett Travers

It was a movie reference. You'll need to watch the movie to get it. A minor point (only) I thought, but if you really look at, quite significant. God seems certain we'll never suss out ethics and He's using that against us - how can we enter heaven when the condition is that we have to be good, the very thing we seem to be in total darkness about/on? God's a very shrewd bloke, devilishly clever. En garde, peeps!

It was a movie reference. You'll need to watch the movie to get it. A minor point (only) I thought, but if you really look at, quite significant. God seems certain we'll never suss out ethics and He's using that against us - how can we enter heaven when the condition is that we have to be good, the very thing we seem to be in total darkness about/on? God's a very shrewd bloke, devilishly clever. En garde, peeps! — Agent Smith

Hehaha, exactly. So damn au courant that God of ours. Which movie, by the way?

The two are equivalent. In both cases the persons in question die, oui? — Agent Smith

There is a lot more going on here. The serpent tells Eve:

“You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

There is some truth to what the serpent says. God had neglected to tell Adam that their eyes would be opened. But the serpent is deceptive. As a consequence of eating they will die.

However, God told Adam:

"... for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

(2:17)

They did not die in that day. Yet because of what they did in that day they would eventually die, after what by our standards was an impossibly long life.

Like the tower of Babel story shows, God doesn't want us anywhere near Him and that includes paradise. — Agent Smith

There is a thematic connection, but this is not what the story shows.

And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.

(Genesis 11:6)

The ability to do whatever they propose to do is to collectively have the power of a very powerful god. Although man knows and can do good he also knows and can do evil [added: doing evil is often what is chosen]. Once again, God saves man from himself.

How do you know we're not born evil? — Agent Smith

My concern here is what the story-teller does and does not claim.

But human mortality came before moralized capital punishment. you just assume that our judgment of serial killers as evil is somehow a necessary law of the universe.

we put people who're really bad to death and so if we too die, irrespective of how good/bad we are, we must be guilty of some evil, an evil so horrific that death is the only redress; — Agent Smith

You're projecting our human values indiscriminately onto the universe. Here is an argument equivalent to yours:

I write letters to the person I romantically love.
If you also receive letters, I must also romantically love you.

This does not follow. There can conceivably be other reasons for you to receive letters. Likewise, there can conceivably be other reasons that we die.

But human mortality came before moralized capital punishment. you just assume that our judgment of serial killers as evil is somehow a necessary law of the universe. — SatmBopd

It is a case of extrapolation: we have a nice thing going on here (the death penalty); If I stay the course, take it to its logical conclusion, verily we're all on death row, the date of our execution being determined by factors personal and not so personal.

I write letters to the person I romantically love.
If you also receive letters, I must also romantically love you. — SatmBopd

There's nothing wrong with this argument, analogically speaking. It's a legit inference.

No. Many people write many different letters for many different reasons. Letters don't necessarily have one blanket purpose. You are basically just saying that there is original sin because we die. It is not logical to just use death as proof for whatever you want.

What about the possibility that we just die because of entropy, or because God needs the universe to keep moving and changing and flowing to keep it healthy (or he wants it to), or because our cells start dying faster than they can be replaced.

People also die because of car accidents. Does that mean that all of humanity is an accident because we die?

All due respect, it just seems like this is a really flimsy argument to me. Like if you wanted to prove original sin, wouldn't it just be more interesting to talk about human behavior, moral systems, human psychology and thought and ambition and hope and love and hate and anger and judgment and folly. One of the oldest and most interesting philosophical questions is about whether human nature is inherently good or evil, discussed by the early Confucians in interesting ways for example. There's also the fact that morality as a concept seems to have basically been invented some 2500 years ago by people like Zoroaster, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Plato/ Aristotle, and the Jewish Prophets in what some scholars term the Axial Age. It would be worth investigating what they understood about human nature if an idea like original sin is to have any merit (which it might I guess).

As it stands, you avoid the interesting aspects about morality, and sin, and merely play a logical trick that does not really convince me, and shouldn't because one could make nearly identical arguments to prove silly things (like romantic love expressed in one letter to one person is romantic love expressed to all, its not).

(sorry if that all sounds harsh, I just really like discussing these topics.)

Why did the serpent want Eve to know about the good also? Why not make her, and her descendants, pure evil? Wouldn't that be more fun? Why is the good good?

No. — SatmBopd

Then we must part ways here. I go my way, you go yours. Sorry it had to come to this. :smile:

It appears that you've missed the point. Nothing wrong with that though. Different strokes for different folks.

Could you, by the way, formulate a coherent hypothesis around our mortality, (original) sin, humanity starting off with Adam & Eve, and the Sky Father, his ire?

Fair enough, I respect that.

If I've missed the point, I would be happy to hear exactly what you mean by that, but it's okay if you don't want to.

As for formulating a coherent hypothesis around morality, I can try but just know that I think it's something that requires much more knowledge than I have, and I do not see the merit to limiting myself to only Judeo-Christian Theology, so if you just want to support Judeo-Christian ideas, that makes sense because Judeo-Christian Theology has a lot of interesting things to say, but it's still not what I'm doing.

A quick, best approximation would be that humanity used to live in a tribal state in which morality was more or less absent, and you would basically just take what you needed/ wanted from people unless you needed them to help you hunt. And most people would have without recompense. But eventually, after the agricultural revolution, and after we lived in cities for a while, some people started to reflect on the "forbidden" idea that there was a better way to conceptualize our relationships with each other, and after they decided that there was a higher (civilized, as in civic) standard for living there was no going back for these people. Things became a lot more complicated and they started looking at things in terms of good, evil, sin and whatnot (notice how it is not until monotheism that morality is a substantial element of religious thought).

That is exactly the story of Adam and Eve, humanity in a "state of nature" a garden where you can just take whatever you want, a forbidden fruit which gives you knowledge of good and evil, after which point you realize you're naked, and are banished from the garden, unable to return. It's worth noting that stories from other cultures around the same time, like that of Enkidu in the Epic of Gilgamesh reflect this same idea, almost exactly. Enkidu is also brought to civilization after living in a forest/ garden, and is unable to return after understanding the standards of a socialized human.

Still have a lot to learn about that, you can take it with a grain of salt but that's how I would start to approach the question of the origin of morality at the moment.

Why did the serpent want Eve to know about the good also? — EugeneW

It is a package deal. One tree, one fruit. The ability for man to do good is the same ability to do evil.

Why not make her, and her descendants, pure evil? — EugeneW

Neither the serpent nor knowledge makes us good or evil. Fixity and freedom of motion plays an important part in the Genesis stories. Note that the serpent moves in one direction in order to move in the opposite direction.

Why is the good good? — EugeneW

Good and evil are tied to benefit and harm. It is largely androcentric.

The problem isn't so much the original sin as the implications for future behavior. There are those who act out sin more acutely. But at the end of the day, given a larger degree of authority and carrying certain behaviors forward would be a magnified disaster. Therefore the need to put a lid on things with death.

I do not see the merit to limiting myself to only Judeo-Christian Theology, — SatmBopd

Perhaps a mashup, blended Whiskey, in the spirit of eclecticism!

What you did was draw a parallel between human history in re morality and the biblical story of A&E. That's not what I asked.

Why not make her, and her descendants, pure evil? — EugeneW

:fire: Package deal or it's more evil to let someone not only do bad things, but also make him/her feel guilty for doing them; knowledge of good being a sine qua non for that. :naughty:

Certain sects of early Christianity presupposed that all created beings were originally in the presence of God prior to the Fall.

Certain of these created beings, who did not commit something called Original Sin, never fell and remained within the presence of God, or the Beatific Vision (the Angels).

Other of these created beings, who did commit something called Original Sin, fell and were removed from the presence of God (Lucifer, fallen angels or demons, and all human beings via Adam and Eve).

Now, the Presence of God, or the Beatific Vision, is what all created beings long for. It represents the ultimate reward of salvation, perfect bliss, the exquisite consummate fulfillment of all possible needs and desires of created beings.

Now, here's the problem.

If all created beings, before the Fall, were originally in the presence of God, how, then, was it even possible for any of these beings to have committed Original Sin?

Before the Fall, what need or desire of a created being could have existed and have possibly remained unfulfilled in the Presence of God (the Beatific Vision), thereby engendering an Original Sin?

How could it be possible for a created being to have had a need or desire that was not sanctioned by God? Did He create some beings who were defective because of Him?

I have a theory: Morality is, I believe, an unsolvable puzzle and God knows, very well, that humans will never get to the bottom of what good and evil are. Hence, he puts down one condition for citizenship in his kingdom of heaven: be moral, avoid immorality. — Agent Smith

For me this kind of thinking is an unnecessary complication. I've often thought morality is fairly simple. Morality is created by humans to facilitate social cooperation in order to achieve our preferred forms of social order. This is why morality varies across times and cultures - there are variations in what order looks like.

I have no interest in what a god's silly plans and egomaniacal thinking might be. The taboos around 'good' and 'evil' are simply ways to control people's behaviour by appealing to some kind of transcendent foundation which can't be argued with or even understood. Good and evil are poetic terms which have no specific meaning and are generally applied according to an individual's or a culture's value system.

Good questions. My instinctive response would be the fall (of man & lucifer and his gang of wayward angels) has something to do with free will. That's the easy target, the proverbial low hanging fruit.

Do you have answers of your own to the questions you posed?

For me this kind of thinking is an unnecessary complication. I've often thought morality is fairly simple. Morality is created by humans to facilitate social cooperation in order to achieve our preferred forms of social order. This is why morality varies across times and cultures - there are variations in what order looks like. — Tom Storm

:up:

I have no interest in what a god's silly plans and egomaniacal thinking might be. The taboos around 'good' and 'evil' are simply ways to control people's behaviour by appealing to some kind of transcendent foundation which can't be argued with or even understood. Good and evil are poetic terms which have no specific meaning and are generally applied according to an individual's or a culture's value system. — Tom Storm

:up:

I dunno how far Franz Kafka's novel The Trial was inspired by the story of original sin and the fall of man, but even from a secular angle, our death feels like a penalty for some forgotten/unknown wrong we've done.

When one speaks of someone having "absolutely free will," to me this does not mean having the mundane uncoerced ability to choose between A or B.

Instead, to me it would mean having the ultimate ability. The ability to create oneself out of nothing while simultaneously choosing who one will be, one's moral character.

Perhaps everyone in existence is responsible for having chosen the wrong moral character and this constitutes original sin.

Perhaps, death provides one with another opportunity to choose correctly.

The ability to create oneself out of nothing — charles ferraro

:chin: Relevance, if any?

Perhaps, death provides one with another opportunity to choose correctly. — charles ferraro

A second chance! One would have to remember (one's past mistakes and what one got right the last time around). Luckily, unluckily, can't tell, our memory isn't up to the task.

Another thing, euthanasia. Some countries permit doctor-assisted suicide in case of intractable pain (suffering) as happens with certain malignancies. Is God punishing us or is it mercy killing (old age ain't fun, why stick around?)