Online discussion and chat forum of Premier Christian Radio
Three sinners and an agnostic walk into a recording studio… Unbelievable? — 28 August 2010
…and the four of them discuss the "Fall", which must be one of the most depressing and disempowering aspects of Christian theology.
(I'm reminded of my paternal grandfather — probably the first independent thinker I encountered. He objected to being labelled a "miserable sinner". He was prepared to accept he was a sinner, but he declared he was far from miserable.)
The concept of the Fall is supposed to be based on the story of Adam and Eve, which is obviously allegorical. The author of Genesis could not have known it as fact as he wasn't there. Norman Nevin's claim that Adam and Eve were actual historical figures because Jesus said so was like saying the Old Testament is true because it says so in the New Testament. It must be obvious (that word again!) that the New Testament authors took the truth of the Old Testament as a given. But then to say it must be true because otherwise the rest of New Testament teaching wouldn't make sense, is just wishful thinking.
Apart from the story's manifest status as myth, there's something seriously adrift with using it as the basis for the species-wide guilt-trip of original sin. According to the story Adam and Eve are shamefully set up. They are created without knowledge of good and evil, and forbidden to obtain that knowledge. Yet without that knowledge they have no way of knowing that disobedience is classed as belonging to one of those two categories. When they disobey, they are punished (along with all of their descendants) for a crime they didn't know existed. Ignorance of the law is no excuse of course, unless — as in this case — the obtaining of knowledge of the law is the actual crime. In effect God told Adam and Eve, "Heads I win, tails you lose — suckers!"
The doctrine of the "fallen" nature of humankind is a despicable slur. I'll have none of it.
(I'm reminded of my paternal grandfather — probably the first independent thinker I encountered. He objected to being labelled a "miserable sinner". He was prepared to accept he was a sinner, but he declared he was far from miserable.)
The concept of the Fall is supposed to be based on the story of Adam and Eve, which is obviously allegorical. The author of Genesis could not have known it as fact as he wasn't there. Norman Nevin's claim that Adam and Eve were actual historical figures because Jesus said so was like saying the Old Testament is true because it says so in the New Testament. It must be obvious (that word again!) that the New Testament authors took the truth of the Old Testament as a given. But then to say it must be true because otherwise the rest of New Testament teaching wouldn't make sense, is just wishful thinking.
Apart from the story's manifest status as myth, there's something seriously adrift with using it as the basis for the species-wide guilt-trip of original sin. According to the story Adam and Eve are shamefully set up. They are created without knowledge of good and evil, and forbidden to obtain that knowledge. Yet without that knowledge they have no way of knowing that disobedience is classed as belonging to one of those two categories. When they disobey, they are punished (along with all of their descendants) for a crime they didn't know existed. Ignorance of the law is no excuse of course, unless — as in this case — the obtaining of knowledge of the law is the actual crime. In effect God told Adam and Eve, "Heads I win, tails you lose — suckers!"
The doctrine of the "fallen" nature of humankind is a despicable slur. I'll have none of it.
Tags: Adam and Eve, Genesis, Norman Nevin, Peter Byrom, Peter Sanlon, The Fall, original sin
Views: 14
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Paul S. Jenkins on -
Um ... yes, I know that Norman Nevin was on the phone...
-
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Chen on -
I'll have none of it.
I guess the issue is what will you have?
In your own understanding of the world, what is "sin", or "evil", and can you rightly call anything sinful/wrong at all? Your very post presumes to make moral value judgments. Clearly you do make moral value judgments, but on what basis do you do so? Not what you do do, but why you do say what is good and what is not? What moral standard do you have to claim that the doctrine of sin is sinful? -
-
Permalink Reply by Paul S. Jenkins on
-
Peter,
My moral standard is derived from shared values (I'm a humanist). To quote something I posted in another thread:
My views on the origins of morality are straightforward: we evolved in social groups, by co-operating with kin for common benefit. Similarly, individual social groups evolved within the larger human race as a whole, and while there are different moral values particular to specific groups within the whole, the individual humans, and the individual groups, are all part of the entire human race sharing essentially the same DNA. Moral values cover a spectrum within humanity, but generally fall within a bell-curve. Keeping the extremes of that bell-curve within limits is the job of mutually agreed moral law.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Billy Squibs on -
What! An atheist will have none of a doctrine that he doesn't believe in.
Anyway, pretending for a moment that we both accept that The Fall is a historical account, I don't think that it is logical to contend that obtaining "knowledge of the law is the actual crime". The law was already set out -- that is, don't eat the apple -- and the crime was breaking the simple law. I don't have to know anything about drug smuggling -- be it the logistics involved or the thuggery -- to understand that it is not something that I should be doing. Presumably if God is telling you not to do something it is for a reason.
I was really looking forward to this debate, yet I was sadly disappointed with the responses from the Christian guests. PS didn't make a strong case for his version of The Fall -- there was no real depth to his argument -- and I found quite a few of NN's statements to be objectionable. At one point NN quoted an early verse from Genesis -- "And God saw that it was good". Moments later "good" had somehow morphed into "perfect". I don't think there is any valid reason for the Christian to assume that life before The Fall was perfect. Indeed, I think it an escapable fact that the nature of the universe has always been this way, and that earthquakes, tsunamis, predation and a countless list of other dangerous phenomena are but brute facts woven into the fabric of existence in a finite universe. Instead of denying the obvious, I think it then rests with to us to see if we can square our theology of The Fall with what we know (or think we know) about material existence. While acknowledging the very real possibility that a total answer may not exist this side of life, I don't think either of the Christian guests got near to addressing the reality of matters.
If Peter Byrom happens to be reading this may I suggest listening to some of the talks on The Faraday Institute regarding interpretation of Genesis. If you do a search for Genesis you will find a number of talks. I found some of the talks from Earnest Lucas to be quite good (example) . Admittedly the focus of these talks are not on The Fall, but you might find them interesting nevertheless. There is also a discussion here on the Ship of Fools on the topic of theodicy. -
-
Permalink Reply by Jane Smith on -
Anyway, pretending for a moment that we both accept that The Fall is a historical account...
It is rather hard to even pretend, given that there does not appear to be the slightest scrap of evidence that such an event occurred - and that there appears to be no external corroboration for the story. I think Christians believe it because the Christian tradition is to accept the reality of the fall (otherwise their interpretation of the NT wouldn't make sense) - not because of the historical veracity and solid evidence of the story. Never mind that the creation stories (that's right there are two) seem eerily similar to that of other ancient cultures, and that most ancient culture have a creation myth or two. And of course they have an experience of Jesus and are told that all of the Bible is God's word, so they just go along with the "if God said it I believe it" approach. I also find it hard to swallow that there were talking serpents, burning bushes, magically parting seas, flying angels, and floating boats carrying the entire species of the planet - particularly since we never see these kind of extraordinary things happen in modern times. And scholars argue over when and who wrote Genesis! Not exactly a solid foundation for faith.
Probably a good number of Christians accept it non-literally, but as allegorical. But at what point in Genesis do you stop accepting it as allegory and start accepting it as history? Chapter 8, chapter 12? -
-
Permalink Reply by Jane Smith on
-
I suspect the creation story and the flood (which have parralels around the world) was added on as a preface to an historical account, my guess would be around the time of Abram and Eygypt would start to lead in some history,( as we know the Hebrew slaves existed etc.) but like you I wasnt there so can't be sure.
That's right, none of us were "there" (and of course we don't really know where "there" was geographically either). But again, according to Christianity, the whole reason for Jesus's redemption was to correct the consequences of the Fall - but we have very little reason to think such an event really happened. That means that Christianity as a faith is built upon a very shaky foundation to say the least. In a way I admire the fundamentalists who believe the literal account - I suppose they at least trying to be consistent (although I find it mind-boggling that anybody can reasonably think the Universe is a mere 6000 years old and find it even more mind-boggling the mental gymnastics people have to engage in to convince themselves - although apparently one of the guests on the show seemed to be doing that very thing, despite a good education).
You say that the creation story was added as a preface to a historical account - but again, where does the preface stop and the history start? If the Bible is supposed to be God's revealed word, how can we trust it if we cannot reliably separate fiction from non-fiction? -
-
Permalink Reply by Jew-Man-J on -
Jane,
But again, according to Christianity, the whole reason for Jesus's redemption was to correct the consequences of the Fall - but we have very little reason to think such an event really happened. That means that Christianity as a faith is built upon a very shaky foundation to say the least.
More a crock than a rock, by all accounts.
Lets never forget Yahweh [so the silly story goes] pops out of a wee Jewess so humans can assist him in a preplanned death/sacrifice to himself. Which is to pay for a curse he put on humans.
Trusting/believing wild unsubstantiated claims that insult intelligence is just bonkers.
[To me "Heritable Sin" is witnessing children being dragged up to subscribe to traditional ignorance]
ATB
JMJ -
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Chen on
-
Paul,
What do you think about the problems with that position? -
-
Permalink Reply by Jew-Man-J on
-
Andy,
This is where God's Spirit is needed, to do the irrational, to do the fantastic, to do the (to us) unbelievable and bring our spirits alive and aware to God again, praise be to God.
Well one could hardly be classed as rational if they dump reason.....could they?
After all 'Rationality' is a word made up by a race that Kills, murders, rapes, maltreats, destroys the very earth they rely on, goes to war, fights, argues, full of greed, lust, ... would you trust such a race to be the fathers of rationality ?
Like the above, that is hardly born from rational thought is it!?!?
Every word known to the human race is made up....where do you think they got the word "god" from....the label on Et's love Child's nappy or something. Plus the race[us] you speak of saves lives selflessly, loves and care for the planet they inhabit. They live in peace mostly, agree mostly, share and give to others mostly.
[You are being heavily influenced by doom mongers]
This is often what Christians mean when they say atheists are in denial, they don't think that you actually wander around all day in the full knowledge of a God but suppressing that thought, but rather that our (that's mine and yours) fallen nature cannot acknowledge the need of saving from ourselves (as it were).
I believe [for good reason] that is why Christians just don't get it, the only thing atheists deny or refuse to trust/believe/subscribe to is ......wild unsubstantiated claims that are irrational, HIGHLY improbable, and void of any evidence that would not get laughed out of a court. Just like you do not trust/believe/subscribe to many a *claim* made, that quite simply beggars belief.
Tell me this Andy, why do you not trust/believe/subscribe to a claim of; " humans can actually fly by flapping their arms really really fast.....if only they really truly believed they could".
Is it ....
A) Irrational
B) HIGHLY improbable
C) Not a shred of evidence concerning such
D) All the above
The King is bollock naked Andy, no offence man but for pity sakes wake up.
ATB
JMJ
[The age of reason.....coming soon. For the sake of humanity the sooner the better] -
-
Permalink Reply by Charlie, Skepticism Examiner on
-
"This is often what Christians mean when they say atheists are in denial, they don't think that you actually wander around all day in the full knowledge of a God but suppressing that thought, but rather that our (that's mine and yours) fallen nature cannot acknowledge the need of saving from ourselves (as it were)."
Andy, doesn't the convenience of this circular reasoning bother you from time to time? How is that different from anyone saying that "there are no gods, and anyone who thinks there are is crazy. You're incapable of seeing that you're crazy, because you believe in gods. If you would just quit believing in gods, then you would have the intellectual foundation to begin moving toward sanity."?
After all 'faith' is a word made up by a religion that Kills, murders, rapes, maltreats, destroys the very earth they rely on, goes to war, fights, argues, full of greed, lust, ... would you take anything that religion says on faith? (And no, I'm not saying that Christianity alone does those things, but why are you saying it's better to pursue faith in things there's no evidence for over evidence-based reasoning?) -
-
Permalink Reply by Jew-Man-J on
-
I do go on ;-)
How about when you have studied and understood all that is actual/ reality, then surely that is the time to dabble with the supernatural/s.
Reality is far more wondrous, way more enlightening, and [obviously] of far better benefit to this race/humans.
ATB
JMJ -
-
Permalink Reply by Jew-Man-J on
-
Are reason and reality anything more than faith positions, a perceived 'truth' if you think otherwise, explain why
Andy, reason and dealing with reality is of FAR more benefit to mankind than the faith you speak of. Which is basically believing/trusting... wild unsubstantiated claims that are irrational, that are HIGHLY improbable, and are void of any evidence that would not get laughed out of a court.
If you think I am wrong please explain why?
I had a wee chin-wag with another god worshipper a while back [John? not sure of his last name] who argued the resurrection was indeed "probable", he could not get a grip of the situation he was basing that on. Which was IF Yahweh [who is truthfully a character out of mythical tales] actually existed then a resurrection is probable.
Well Dah, IF Yahweh actually exists every claim associated with him is probable, indeed HIGHLY probable.
There lies the problem it's all IFFY, The rational, the good... do not deal in IFFY goods. Only the godly do that.
ATB
JMJ -
Advertisement
Report an Issue
Have you seen any offensive content? Or abusive postings? Help us make this a safe and friendly environment. Please let us know! We will act on all reports, but may not individually respond to the reporter. We have also established certain rules for using this social site.
A Listening Ear
If any of the discussions or topics on Premier Community have affected you please contact Premier Lifeline. Lifeline is a confidential Christian helpline there for you from 9am until midnight, 365 days of the year. A fully trained team are ready to offer a listening ear.
Free! Hillsong Live music download! Click Here
Badge
© 2012 Created by Premier Christian Media.
