Is the Christian God the first cause of sin?
14 Aug 2019, 11:08 am
I have gone to Christian church some, and have met some amazing Christians. But, perhaps because I am ND, I could never wrap my head around some of the technicalities. I specifically have difficulty rectifying facts we are told about God’s nature with facts we are told about God’s creation and it's history.
The initial premises would be:
1. God is all powerful. There is nothing beyond God’s capabilities.
2. God is all knowing. God knows everything that is and will be. There is no information unavailable to him, and no question he cannot answer.
3. God is perfectly good and just.
4. The Bible is literally true, and represents an accurate depiction of events as they actually happened (that is to say, it is not metaphorical).
Let us go back to the moment just before the first lines of Genesis. God is about to begin creating his creation, but has not started yet. He is about to create the Heaven and the Earth, but has not done so. At this point, there is only God.
5. Because of premises 2 and 4, God knows in this initial moment that he will create Adam, and that Adam will sin.
6. Because of premise 1, we know that God could very easily set things up differently. He could, for example, not make Adam. He could not make the forbidden fruit. He could make Adam with a different nature. The possibilities here are, by definition, limitless.
7. Because of premise 4, we know that God does make Adam, and that Adam sins, and that this causes the fall of man and all of the problems and consequences associated with it.
From premises 5, 6, and 7, how can we say that God is not the first cause of sin? In that initial moment before the first lines in Genesis, God knows that his acts of creation he would result in Adam sinning, but He goes through with it anyway.
Some potential answers, which seem unsatisfying:
Solution 1: No problem here! God is the original cause of sin. But does this contradict premise 3? This also seems to contradict premise 4 among the myriad of bible versus that talk about how much God abhors sin.
Solution 2: God gave man free will, and man chose to sin, not God. But does this really matter if God knew this would happen before he created Adam, and made him anyway? This still seems like God is the first cause of sin, just with extra steps in the middle. If I set up a series of dominoes, and the final one will fall on a button that sets off a bomb, aren’t I responsible if I start the domino chain and blow someone up?
Solution 3: God created sin, but it is a part of his bigger plan and a ‘necessary evil’. But doesn’t this contradict premise 1? Clearly there can be no plan of God's which requires sin, as God should be able to will an alternate plan that has all of the good parts of His creation without the sin. Saying sin is a necessary evil implies God couldn’t do it another way, which puts restrictions on God.
I am interested in hearing from Christians and non-Christians here.
14 Aug 2019, 11:33 am
Excellent question, and your premises are solid. I'm Catholic & the question you raise has been covered in depth for hundreds of years by our theologians, taking up where Judaism left off--and the Greeks, the Islamic philosophers, Hindoo mystics, etc. All humanity has wondered why there is evil in the world, and your post illustrates a deeper understanding of it than most people have...But there is one thing missing. (I was six years old and started asking these questions. Fortunately the parish priest and I got to sit down and hash it out. I used to wonder whether God could take away my free will & simply make me work according to His will but the priest explained why God could/would not do that. Six-year-old me was kind of stupid.)
Now, about that Free Will. By Free Will is meant the fact that man is a moral agent who can make choices as he intends. It is a terrifying doctrine because it means that we can choose evil (which is the absence of good) but it is liberating because love, since that is a reciprocal relationship, cannot be forced. Free Will allows us to love. Also, to sin. It is a blessing, and we can choose to make a curse of it if we desire.
God abhors sin because sin is an offense against Him. He is not a pretentious twat. He simply is so BIG (being infinite) that an offense against God is an infinite one, even a very minor sort of thing such as casual blasphemy. (We have a hard time understanding this because society conditions us to live like materialistic animals.)
Granted, Adam and Eve did not have to sin. God knew they would. Remember, the devil was an angel once, who fell because he would not serve God (so say traditions,) and was thrown from heaven. Lucifer could have been Heaven's brightest angel. Was, at one time, but free will (as found in all rational beings, angels and men alike) was something he chose to use to his own undoing.
God knew Adam would sin. But God also knew that Adam was an individual. That God had made Adam not as a mindless slave or a groveling modern-day Evangelist with the devotional life of a golden retriever. That Adam and Eve would go out, suffer day by day, physical torment called living, existential torment as the first death they cope with is their own son Abel, spiritual torment of separating themselves from God. And God promised Adam that there would be the Redeemer.
No, God isn't the first cause of sin. For sins, like any other evil, exist only in a negative sense. Darkness is but a name for the conditions caused by the absence of light. Sin and evil are but the absence of good.
(Also, why do we call God the "Christian God?" It makes us sound like motivational speakers yelling "Believe in yourself!" which I think He would find rather amusing. I know I would.)
_________________
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 134 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 72 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)
14 Aug 2019, 12:27 pm
Now, about that Free Will. By Free Will is meant the fact that man is a moral agent who can make choices as he intends. It is a terrifying doctrine because it means that we can choose evil (which is the absence of good) but it is liberating because love, since that is a reciprocal relationship, cannot be forced. Free Will allows us to love. Also, to sin. It is a blessing, and we can choose to make a curse of it if we desire.
God abhors sin because sin is an offense against Him. He is not a pretentious twat. He simply is so BIG (being infinite) that an offense against God is an infinite one, even a very minor sort of thing such as casual blasphemy. (We have a hard time understanding this because society conditions us to live like materialistic animals.)
Granted, Adam and Eve did not have to sin. God knew they would. Remember, the devil was an angel once, who fell because he would not serve God (so say traditions,) and was thrown from heaven. Lucifer could have been Heaven's brightest angel. Was, at one time, but free will (as found in all rational beings, angels and men alike) was something he chose to use to his own undoing.
God knew Adam would sin. But God also knew that Adam was an individual. That God had made Adam not as a mindless slave or a groveling modern-day Evangelist with the devotional life of a golden retriever. That Adam and Eve would go out, suffer day by day, physical torment called living, existential torment as the first death they cope with is their own son Abel, spiritual torment of separating themselves from God. And God promised Adam that there would be the Redeemer.
No, God isn't the first cause of sin. For sins, like any other evil, exist only in a negative sense. Darkness is but a name for the conditions caused by the absence of light. Sin and evil are but the absence of good.
(Also, why do we call God the "Christian God?" It makes us sound like motivational speakers yelling "Believe in yourself!" which I think He would find rather amusing. I know I would.)
My issue with this line of thinking is that it implies that God could not create a world that both served his purpose for not having mindless slaves without also introducing sin. It essentially puts a limitation on the all-powerful God.
14 Aug 2019, 12:29 pm
Point taken. But God did not introduce sin. It happened to have been an option started by other persons.
As I said, free will--they were free to do evil, but they were just as free to do good.
_________________
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 134 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 72 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)
14 Aug 2019, 12:30 pm
That is true, however only Christians (to my knowledge) believe in eternal damnation. This is the real problem. If God is the cause of sin, and sin sends people to hell eternally, then that sounds an awful lot like God creating people who are destined to suffer forever. Other religions can get around it by saying that sin is a necessary part of the overall plan, but that it's ok because eventually everyone ends up in paradise anyways.
14 Aug 2019, 12:34 pm
As I said, free will--they were free to do evil, but they were just as free to do good.
My point is that, before God even created Adam, he knew that it would end up with them sinning. To then go ahead with creation as planned, implies a sort of ownership.
If I am just about to start off a chain reaction that I know will cause some horrible harm, then what does it say about me if i go through with it without changing something to alter the course?
For example, if I am just about push my car down a hill knowing that there are people at the bottom of it, don't I have an obligation to change something about what I am about to do?
The problem with all of this lies in God knowing what will happen if he starts off the chain reaction, and doing so anyway.
14 Aug 2019, 12:53 pm
That is true, however only Christians (to my knowledge) believe in eternal damnation. This is the real problem. If God is the cause of sin, and sin sends people to hell eternally, then that sounds an awful lot like God creating people who are destined to suffer forever. Other religions can get around it by saying that sin is a necessary part of the overall plan, but that it's ok because eventually everyone ends up in paradise anyways.
Islam teaches that there is an eternal hellfire (quite a literal one), and is far more vociferous about it than any form of Christianity.
Most Protestant forms of Christianity now basically reject hell altogether, or in effect believe that it's not a place of suffering, but mere boredom. Catholicism, too, since Vatican II has (all but) rejected the old teaching of extra ecclesiam non salus.
We cannot judge the rectitude of God's actions, in a certain sense, because it would take the mind of a God to understand them. The child may resent and be bewildered by his parents' refusal to let him consume candy whenever he wants, but that's because the child doesn't understand the need for restraint here, having a more limited mind. Man is not, in the religious worldview, the measure of all things, and it would be something like a category mistake to approach religious discourse from the standpoint of secular humanism, given the former rejects the premises upon which the latter is based. Perhaps there's an ontological necessity by which a certain measure of evil must exist within possible worlds, and we just don't know it.
I'm something of a Catholic, by the way.
14 Aug 2019, 1:18 pm
That is true, however only Christians (to my knowledge) believe in eternal damnation. This is the real problem. If God is the cause of sin, and sin sends people to hell eternally, then that sounds an awful lot like God creating people who are destined to suffer forever. Other religions can get around it by saying that sin is a necessary part of the overall plan, but that it's ok because eventually everyone ends up in paradise anyways.
Islam teaches that there is a hell, and is far more vociferous about it than any form of Christianity.
Most Protestant forms of Christianity now basically reject hell altogether, or in effect believe that it's not a place of suffering, but mere boredom. Catholicism, too, since Vatican II has (all but) rejected the old teaching of extra ecclesiam non salus.
We cannot judge the rectitude of God's actions, in a certain sense, because it would take the mind of a God to understand them. The child may resent and be bewildered by his parents' refusal to let him consume candy whenever he wants, but that's because the child doesn't understand the need for restraint here, having a more limited mind. Man is not, in the religious worldview, the measure of all things, and it would be something like a category mistake to approach religious discourse from the standpoint of secular humanism, given the former rejects the premises upon which the latter is based.
I'm something of a Catholic, by the way.
You can argue that we simply lack the capacity to understand the decision, which is certainly true if you accept the axioms of God as I presented earlier.
However, we can evaluate what God has purportedly revealed to us. My premises are all biblical, meaning that they represent a divine source. This is not my mere speculation, but rather the necessary consequences of what God has himself presented us.
To your second point, a disbelief in hell is certainly not biblical, and I would argue that denominations who shy away from it are rejecting a part of biblical canon. If we reject hell, why not the rest of it? Why not just look at it as a metaphorical set of myths designed to promote good behavior as opposed to an actual, historically accurate text?
See:
Matthew 25:41
Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'
Matthew 25:46
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Jude 1:7
Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Daniel 12:2
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Revelation 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Thessalonians 1:9
They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.
14 Aug 2019, 1:48 pm
That is entirely fair as a personal view.
My philosophical worries are only directed at the Christian set of beliefs based on the Christian bible as it has come to be accepted by all major denominations.
I contend that a Christian would say of the afterlife, "We can know what will happen after we die, and it is accurately described in the bible."
14 Aug 2019, 2:14 pm
That is true, however only Christians (to my knowledge) believe in eternal damnation. This is the real problem. If God is the cause of sin, and sin sends people to hell eternally, then that sounds an awful lot like God creating people who are destined to suffer forever. Other religions can get around it by saying that sin is a necessary part of the overall plan, but that it's ok because eventually everyone ends up in paradise anyways.
Islam teaches that there is a hell, and is far more vociferous about it than any form of Christianity.
Most Protestant forms of Christianity now basically reject hell altogether, or in effect believe that it's not a place of suffering, but mere boredom. Catholicism, too, since Vatican II has (all but) rejected the old teaching of extra ecclesiam non salus.
We cannot judge the rectitude of God's actions, in a certain sense, because it would take the mind of a God to understand them. The child may resent and be bewildered by his parents' refusal to let him consume candy whenever he wants, but that's because the child doesn't understand the need for restraint here, having a more limited mind. Man is not, in the religious worldview, the measure of all things, and it would be something like a category mistake to approach religious discourse from the standpoint of secular humanism, given the former rejects the premises upon which the latter is based.
I'm something of a Catholic, by the way.
You can argue that we simply lack the capacity to understand the decision, which is certainly true if you accept the axioms of God as I presented earlier.
However, we can evaluate what God has purportedly revealed to us. My premises are all biblical, meaning that they represent a divine source. This is not my mere speculation, but rather the necessary consequences of what God has himself presented us.
To your second point, a disbelief in hell is certainly not biblical, and I would argue that denominations who shy away from it are rejecting a part of biblical canon. If we reject hell, why not the rest of it? Why not just look at it as a metaphorical set of myths designed to promote good behavior as opposed to an actual, historically accurate text?
See:
Matthew 25:41
Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'
Matthew 25:46
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Jude 1:7
Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Daniel 12:2
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Revelation 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Thessalonians 1:9
They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.
As a Catholic, I do not accept the erroneous principle of sola scriptura, and in fact, it's Impossible to do so consistently, not least because the Bible itself makes provisions for the authority of men. Even so, the Bible as a literal text, being only inspired by God (the Holy Spirit) and not actually written by Him, is not without errors on secondary matters (that is, secondary to faith and morals). The best example of this is the creation myth at the beginning of Genesis.
Certainly, the sects that reject the reality of hell aren't Christian in any meaningful sense. And, as you suggest they're logically required to, they do indeed reject everything else in the Bible, which is why atheists like Albert Schweitzer and many other Protestant theologians ended up rejecting the Resurrection and viewing prayer as a therapeutic exercise.
The Bible is not an unambiguous text, or one that can be interpreted literally, which is why humanity needs a source of authority to interpret it, that authority ultimately being the Pope and his College of Bishops (Matt. 16:18).
14 Aug 2019, 3:22 pm
Certainly, the sects that reject the reality of hell aren't Christian in any meaningful sense. And, as you suggest they're logically required to, they do indeed reject everything else in the Bible, which is why atheists like Albert Schweitzer and many other Protestant theologians ended up rejecting the Resurrection and viewing prayer as a therapeutic exercise.
The Bible is not an unambiguous text, or one that can be interpreted literally, which is why humanity needs a source of authority to interpret it, that authority ultimately being the Pope and his College of Bishops (Matt. 16:18).
Thank you for sharing your point of view. I have many questions for you, though I think they would start to leave the scope of the thread. Is it fair to say that your answer to the original question is that we should not take the creation myth in Genesis literally?
Even so, do you agree that 1. God created humanity knowing it would sin, and 2. had the ability to create it differently such that it could achieve all of his purposes but not include sin?
If so, I still contend that the following must be true (that is, it is not my flawed human opinion, but a necessary consequence of the claimed facts):
God chose to include sin in creation, even though he could have chosen not to and still achieved all of his purposes. Thus, God is not purely good.
If you disagree, then one of the following must be true:
God is not all powerful, because he was unable to make a world that suited his purposes without the inclusion of sin.
God is not all-knowing, and he did not know that humans would sin when he created them.
If you disagree with my conclusion, specifically which statement above do you disagree with?
14 Aug 2019, 4:21 pm
Certainly, the sects that reject the reality of hell aren't Christian in any meaningful sense. And, as you suggest they're logically required to, they do indeed reject everything else in the Bible, which is why atheists like Albert Schweitzer and many other Protestant theologians ended up rejecting the Resurrection and viewing prayer as a therapeutic exercise.
The Bible is not an unambiguous text, or one that can be interpreted literally, which is why humanity needs a source of authority to interpret it, that authority ultimately being the Pope and his College of Bishops (Matt. 16:18).
Thank you for sharing your point of view. I have many questions for you, though I think they would start to leave the scope of the thread. Is it fair to say that your answer to the original question is that we should not take the creation myth in Genesis literally?
Even so, do you agree that 1. God created humanity knowing it would sin, and 2. had the ability to create it differently such that it could achieve all of his purposes but not include sin?
If so, I still contend that the following must be true (that is, it is not my flawed human opinion, but a necessary consequence of the claimed facts):
God chose to include sin in creation, even though he could have chosen not to and still achieved all of his purposes. Thus, God is not purely good.
If you disagree, then one of the following must be true:
God is not all powerful, because he was unable to make a world that suited his purposes without the inclusion of sin.
God is not all-knowing, and he did not know that humans would sin when he created them.
If you disagree with my conclusion, specifically which statement above do you disagree with?
I don't believe in the literal truth of the Genesis creation myth, though that's not a specific answer to your question, only an illustration of the broader point that not everything written in the Bible is literally true.
God created men with free will, and it is by virtue of this free will, in opposition to that of God himself, that men choose sin. Of course, being omniscient, that means he had, as it were, foreknowledge that men would sin, but this is not held to be in opposition to his goodness, for we cannot know wholly what were his purposes in creating the world in exactly the way he did. We cannot even know if another world would be ontologically possible. Your first statement is true, then, but your second is at least of indeterminate truth value.
14 Aug 2019, 9:57 pm
I doubt that anyone denies that God set up Adam and Eve to fail.
But why he did that I don't know.
Well, I deny it. So count one.
There is a poem that is worth reading about this. It is in Latin but you can find an English translation on the Web. It is called the Exsultet and is sung on Holy Saturday (night before Easter) at the highest religious ceremonies of the Catholic Church. I copy here from Wikipedia. Note the paradox:
This is the night
when Christ broke the prison-bars of death
and rose victorious from the underworld.
Our birth would have been no gain,
had we not been redeemed.
O wonder of your humble care for us!
O love, O charity beyond all telling,
to ransom a slave you gave away your Son!
O truly necessary sin of Adam,
destroyed completely by the Death of Christ!
O happy fault
that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer!
O truly blessed night,
worthy alone to know the time and hour
when Christ rose from the underworld!
This is the night
of which it is written:
The night shall be as bright as day,
dazzling is the night for me, and full of gladness.
O happy fault! (Oh awesome paradox.)
The English Lit nerd in me is gratified at this.
_________________
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 134 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 72 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Christian Propaganda at Hwy 80 Rescue Mission |
13 Apr 2024, 4:14 pm |
|
Delusions of Grandeur - Religious/Christian
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
29 Mar 2024, 8:25 pm |
