As @180Proof quoted above:
The Hebrew term, רע (ra’ ) often translated as evil, is the opposite of טוֹב (good), as in the tree of good and bad. Not everything that is bad is evil in the way the term is often used.
A tornado, for example, can be calamitous, but they are not evil. Being attacked by a wild animal is bad but the animal is not evil.
Through later OT prophets such as Isaiah, Ezekiel and Hosea, God makes it clear that substitutionary atonement will no longer be accepted. God wants loyalty. They must make themselves righteous. That is they must cease to do evil. In doing, they will make themselves clean.
The gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry is consistent with those concepts. It is not only consistent, jesus at times quotes from them or points in the same direction.
Then along came Paul and followers of Paul and turned things on its head. Substitutionary atonement is back, but only for thse who have faith that Jesus paid for their sins: past,present and future.
But there is a glaring problem. If the unrighteous can make themselves righteous by ceasing to sin, then what need is there for substitutionary atonement. Enter the concept of original sin where no one can make themselves righteous.
Not sure how much detail you want, so I’ve just given you a brief sketch. If you want more detail, just ask.
BTW, for those who take the Garden of Eden story as allegoy, the question posed in the title is nonsensical.
God has Foreknowledge and plans according to the Bible.
I disagree. I already provided my analysis of the situation when the original sin occurred. I don’t want to repeat myself here, so it is nice of you to address my points.
No, I don’t agree. I already provided my analysis in the OP.
They are the same thing.
Thank you very much for the elaboration.
In the OP, your understanding on God seems unclear. You seem to be confusing God with human person.
Do you agree God is nothing to do with human person? Or do you claim God is human person?
This is an incredibly childish and very one-dimensional summation. Imagine if you ended the Balkan Conflict, invented a cure for cancer, and made affordable healthcare a reality for all and when someone talks about you in the future they say “oh, MoK is a character who liked his steak unusually rare as opposed to medium-well. That rapscallion.”
You really not ought put your own mortal mechanisation into the shoes of an immortal being that has existed for time immemorial and knows knowledge you cannot even begin to fathom. I truly hate when people do that. That’s the problem with humanity. People think their individual limitations and shortcomings apply to every single other person on Earth who has lived, currently lives, or ever will live instead of accepting the glaring truth, that they are simply inferior and have a personal problem that, while might be shared by many, has absolutely zero affect and standing on any other person automatically.
They look at someone doing something—anything—remotely out of place or what they don’t consider normal and assume “oh well if that were me, I’d be doing [XYZ], so therefore, there’s a 99% chance said person is doing [XYZ].” Humanity is a naive, afraid being who attempts to mask these inherent traits by hiding behind soulless knowledge, shallow pleasantry, and above all, ruthless subjugation of his environment and especially his fellow man, particularly those who can see through all of these facades and call him out. To hate a being that operates as such—not even by ignorance but with full and present understanding and pride in said behavior—is to love life itself. I dare argue.
It’s not egregiously offensive, it’s just profoundly ignorant. It goes back to cognitive bias. The mind of a unwell egotistical being, borderline narcissist. I’ll tell you how to detect one. They don’t remember when their last mistake was, despite everyone in their life being able to recite several on command. But I digress.
The main contribution I wish to share, which I remind myself of just about every night, often painfully: No human being created themself. If you wish to believe the relevant text, humanity was— not a mistake, by strict definition, but—a severe regret that was meant to be undone.
Sometimes we think “outside of time” means what we’ve been raised to believe it does whereas in reality it could be the exact opposite.
We definitely should “de-religicize” the argument and turn it into something more generic, otherwise it’s just a theistic shouting match where logic applies when we feel the need for it to and on no other occasion.
If I made a video game, and made a character more powerful or otherwise cunning than the others (or perhaps said character simply became that way whereas the others simply failed to). And two others were given instructions. It’s complicated. We don’t know the full story. We’re told the gist of it, the summary, but little backstory.
Definitely a slippery-slope topic we got going on here. But intriguing for those interested.
Fairy tales are replete with arbitrary rules that, if broken, result in dire consequences. Orpheus cannot look back; Pandora cannot open the box; Cinderella must leave the ball by midnight; Psyche cannot see her lover; etc., etc.
Why? Who knows? Perhaps the design is to laud obedience.
In any event, Eve’s disobedience is not “original sin”. Didn’t Lucifer and his supporting angels rebel earlier?
Also, “who can know the mind of God?” Without sin, perhaps, there can be no virtue. Maybe God admires free will, the choice to obey or disobey.
God created (supposedly) a universe in which good and evil exist. Could good exist without evil? Maybe not.
They are not the same thing. God says why he prohibited them from eating of the tree of knowledge. It is not as if he chose just any tree at random. Why would the whole of mankind have to suffer if it was just a matter of their disobedience?
That’s the arbitrary rule. Why would Orpheus looking back cause Eurydice to die sgain?
This is a standard trope in myths and fairy tales.
Isn’t life? Our bodies are mostly water, yet if we submerse ourselves into it, we drown. If we drink too much water, we die.
Human life would not be possible without heat, thermodynamics. Yet if we jump into a fire, we die.
Are these not fundamentally arbitrary rules we attempt to explain and understand by slapping the title of “science” on it that, if broken, result in dire consequences?
And it’s not just scientific biological realities but verifiable occurrences of the human condition. Having a “broken heart”, insurmountable grief, falling in love, or so we think. All these things have real immovable value in the human experience that people would and have killed and died for in the face of reason, logic, and science that suggests otherwise. So think about that.
The past tense of match is matched. The past tense of catch is caught. Why? Because it’s not catched, that’s why.
Good point. Perhaps the myths and fairy tales emphasize the arbitrary nature of the laws of science.
It is not arbitrary. Gaining knowledge has consequences, both good and bad. Knowledge is productive. We still face this problem today. AI is the latest iteration.
Genesis 11 tells another story that addresses the same problem.
Man attempts to build a tower that reaches the heavens. God destroys the tower and confuses their one language. Why? Because otherwise, as God says:“nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them”. (11.6)
I read your long post twice, and I didn’t get what your point is. Why do you think that Satan lied to Eve?
We already discussed that. By person, I don’t mean human.
Eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge was certainly the first sin. I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
It doesn’t matter. If we take the relevant text in question as truthful, it implies Satan is a very ancient and so wise being. I took offense at the idea (pardon my misanthropy) that (while I do enjoy you and your contributions here, genuinely) you can somehow “deduce” only one possibility; as if a mere mortal can comprehend the mind of a divine or ancient being that has existed for a lenght of time you cannot even fathom and so has knowledge beyond our understanding. That’s what annoyed me. I suppose it’s a bit silly, since this is a philosophy forum and the large majority will look at us as debating whether or not Santa Claus’ suit is cranberry or crimson.
I just don’t like when people reach illogical conclusions and do so with full confidence, even in topics that are inherently illogical by nature. It’s just as much for your benefit as mine, I assure you.
If you really want to know, I’ve answered this previously on other platforms. God said knowledge will kill us; Satan said we will not die but be like God. Both are correct when we examine the modern world and trajectory it is on. We are likely to exterminate ourselves with knowledge of nuclear weapons; yet we in fact “did not die” (yet) are also “like God” in being able to destroy entire peoples and nations. It shows how there are two sides to every truth, in my opinion. Though, that’s a bit too heavy for this crowd. I’ll be quiet now.