Wittgenstein said, “He who lives in the present lives forever.”
The human tragedy is that we are aware of our own mortality. The tree of knowledge is, perhaps, to blame. Like God, we have foreknowledge. Unlike God, it is of of our deaths.
Also, the knowledge of good and evil persuades us that we sin; “there is none righteous; no not one.” Perhaps that is the “original sin.”
I am afraid to say that it matters. And we can analyze things if they follow the rules of logic. What is your opinion, by the way? Who is responsible for the first sin?
Sure. But it would be nice if you acknowledge your OP contains more than one presumptions and assumptions that are not anything a normal human being would know. That is what I think needs to be addressed before going any further.
Also, are you really going to ignore the groundbreaking truth I just dropped about how the two entities did not explicitly lie though both may have revealed less than what they knew and what was otherwise relevant to the person(s) spoken to? Like, that information is kind of historic as far as people who study this stuff is concerned. Intercontinental wars have been waged, entire civilizations have been destroyed over revelations like this. Kind of wild you just ignore like it’s just another philosophical position. It’s kind of like you don’t really don’t take any of this seriously. Which is fine. Maybe that’s a good thing, actually.
I really think you need to take a step back and reread what’s been posted thus far. Until you do that, I’ll respond to a baited question (I believe you’re not doing so intentionally) with an equally baited answer. That answer being: Whosoever committed it. See how one can give an answer that is indisputably correct factually yet not useful as far as the motives or desires of the questioner is concerned.
I’m sure there’s a tangential argument to be had about free will and such regarding varying degrees of influence on the human mind.
Is that ad for the local sports bar that I ended up going to, getting hammered, driving home, and killing a mother of two responsible for what happened? Most people would say not so much. I chose to buy a TV, I chose to turn it on, I tuned in to the channel, I watched the ad, I got into my car, I arrived and spent my money, I ordered drinks. And then made poor decisions thereafter.
Is an abusive stepfather who sexually abused his stepdaughter for years on end responsible for her life of drug addiction and eventual suicide? What do you think most people would say?
We have to determine what really went on in the alleged situation. The Bible is a translation, what I believe is a summary that contains bits and pieces of events that have been lost to time. That’s why I said we should recreate the scenario, strip it of it’s “Biblicalness” and go from there. Which I did succinctly, above.
You have my answer. If you read between the lines. Now give me yours.
OK, so you confirmed that your position is God is not human. Then it brings our attention to your suggestion, God is responsible for original sin.
It seems unreasonable to suggest responsibility on non-human entity for original sin which resulted in the tragic misfortune for humans.
Would you suggest responsibility on a stone which broke your window, when the stone was thrown by a local youth?
The point is, it is not just any tree that they were forbidden to eat the fruit of. What is at issue is not just disobedience.
The first mention of sin is in chapter four.God says:
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.
It does not say that not doing what is right is a sin but that if you do not do what is right sin is waiting for you. Disobedience is wrong, it can lead you astray, that is, to sin, to harm, to wickedness and evil.
This is a central part of the problem of knowledge.
Cool! So you agree that it matters. Could you please give me your analysis of who is responsible for the first sin? We have four characters here, so please give me a name and the reason.
Satan certainly didn’t lie, and God certainly did. They didn’t die after eating the fruit, which is what Satan said. God certainly said that you would die if you eat the fruit, which was not something that happened.
Could we focus on the story, please? I am not talking about stone, the youth, and broken windows here.
The point of the question was, is it reasonable to suggest responsibility to nonhuman entities?
It was not about stone, the youth or broken window. Of course not!
The simple example was given out for you to think about it, and make analogy to the main point under the presumption that you would be able to tell the difference between the main point and the example given for making analogy.
This was not addressed to me but I would like to answer. Equating the serpent with Satan is a questionable interpretive assumption.
It is the way of a serpent to move in one direction in order to go in another. It’s movements are deceiving. The serpent does not lie to Eve, but is deceptive. Their eyes were opened. They did not die from eating the fruit, but what the serpent did not say is that they would be prevented from eating of the tree of life and living forever.
This is what I’m talking about when I say “stop thinking like a mortal.” Which doesn’t really make sense in contemporary philosophy, and I understand that. Read what I said. Humanity has almost nuked itself into oblivion at least half a dozen times. And now, the arsenals are even stronger, so that could happen in the future. And the more people reproduce, the scarcer land and resources get, the stricter the government has to crack down to control order, the less compassionate men will be toward his fellow man and the more inclined people will be toward war and governmental use of force. “The world will grow cold” for example is a verse that describes both this action and a possible nuclear winter.
My point is. If I tell someone they’re going to die, and they don’t instantly burst into flames, that doesn’t mean I lied. Why would you think just because something hasn’t happened yet that means it never could? Surely this is a simple logical fallacy that has nothing to do with religion or theism in the least. The quote (translated from non-English) was “ye shall surely die” which very might well be a rough translation of “you will inevitably (or eventually) die.” See how translations lose and gain new meaning. Keep in mind the world was created in six “days” which likely translate to ages or periods of time. Not literally a “if you eat this in 24 hours you’ll die.” It’s all about the translation and interpretation when it comes to stories thousands of years old.
It’s very likely we have different versions or understandings of the story in question. I have, atypical sources, generally speaking. So, I’d like to hear yours first, if that’s okay. Just so I know what information you have, what information you don’t, and how to respond in a way that makes sense to you.
In the meantime, if it’s alright, I will pose a question, that should provide an answer.
Is Hitler responsible for the holocaust? Or his parents for giving birth to him? What about the bartender or friend who first introduced his parents to one another? What about his grandparents? After all, none of the events described would have ever happened without the willful acts of said persons, despite being ignorant of the eventual outcome. Do you see how responsibility can become diffused without ever becoming truly distinct.
I don’t understand why God created Paradise like that, such that obedience becomes important! No tree of knowledge, and they would be free to do whatever they want to do, no obedience, no sin, peace! So, back to the story, who is responsible for the first sin?
I don’t think that your analogy is a valid one. Could we please focus on the story?
OK, maybe you don’t get the point from the example given and make analogy from it. Fair enough.
Then you could just answer the question directly. Is it reasonable to suggest responsibility from nonhuman entities?
The God in Genesis is a personal God. He talks. He listens. He decides to do things. He’s not a human, but he’s a person, in much the same way Zeus is a person.
Ok, I use the Serpent afterward when it comes to the story.
I am familiar with that narrative. In fact, it is mentioned that they become like one of US if they eat from the tree of life. So, it seems that they were not the only ones who ate from the tree of knowledge. It is a valid question why God made such an exception, punishing Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, and not others.
I am not interested in your interpretation but the story.
Please read the OP.
I don’t think there is a relation between your example and the story.
Why not?
You realize we’re literally discussing a translated interpretation, yes? A square hole can fit both a triangle and a circle, meaning your unexamined translation has no distinct value over my expanded and frankly well-thought out version. Not intrinsically or in and of itself. You’re being odd now.
I first point out assumptions and presumptions in your OP, you ignore. Then I point out how you are incorrect in saying the character we call “God” lied since just because something hasn’t happened yet it might very well soon (citing evidence we can see all around us today) which would prove the original statement correct, which you also ignore.
This is not a good faith argument.
I did. It’s riddled with non-Biblical (de facto non-factual) assumptions not supported by any biblical text it would seem you just randomly concluded on a whim. So I’ll have to ignore it and go by the common story:
We assume God is just. So God punished all responsible parties. The serpent was punished for tempting Eve, choosing the weaker more susceptible person, and the offspring of Adam and Eve (keep in mind there are tales of other humans and even an earlier wife of Adam that most sources simply don’t talk about for whatever reason, meaning we do not know for sure all humans are descended from Adam and Eve and there were others in other places who never disobeyed at all) were banished from Eden.
Let’s not make it religious. Say your dad tells you not to stick a fork in an electrical outlet and your little brother (bear in mind, Adam and Eve were given dominion over the animals evidenced by the fact they were allowed to name them so it’s not like a big brother or random adult authority figure) tells you to, and you do it. Who do you think is it at fault.
A person is a member of human. A person has DOB, Nationality, Address and Sex. A person has a biological body growing old, and eventually dies.
AI talks, listens and decides to do things. AI is not human and is not person.
Zeus is a personified God in Greek myth. The OT God is totally different type of God, who has never shown face or body in any of the paintings or any form of arts through the human history.
I think there was. But you failed to see it.
Why do you claim it is reasonable?