Your question and answer raise more questions and answer nothing. Intentional on whose part? Why couldn’t he retract or amend it, or even give another blessing? Most importantly, how could God possibly be unable to do anything given his omnipotence? And finally, how is a curse inherited?
3 Likes
I don’t know. I don’t care. Ask a Trinitarian.
If you don’t know or care, why do you keep offering these claims and what you suppose are explanations? Are you trying to defend propositions you don’t yourself believe? If so, that’s known as trolling, and it’s generally frowned upon in respectable circles. If not, why deflect questions?
2 Likes
Because there is no pleasing you. I provided you the entire story of the blessing … as a courtesy. And instead of thanking me, you “thumped” me:
To answer the other two questions:
[2] Why should either birthright or blessing be considered analogous to original sin?
Because original sin cannot be revised or reversed, and the blessing could not be revised or reversed.
[3] And wasn’t that an extremely silly story?
Yes, I said it wouldn’t make any sense.
I give up.
3 Likes
I think the “what” and “how” of original sin are not particularly universal within Christianity, from what I can tell, much like the "what and “how” of creation itself.
Original sin can mean anything from a “a general state originating in the Fall that affects all humanity such that all people have a tendency towards sin” to a very forensic “transmission of the actual guilt of the Fall from one generation to the next”. Wikipedia has a pretty extensive overview of original sin, including how different traditions view it. There is quite an amount of variety there. Most of it centers, naturally, on the spiritual/theological consequences and not the “how” of transmission.
I think a general summary or lowest common denominator is that original sin represents the spiritual consequences of Adam & Eve’s sin that all humanity now finds itself trapped in. Some people may take that as social injustice (war, slavery, oppression, etc.) that plague human societies, some people will take it as a, now “natural”, tendency towards sin that comes with being human, some people will take it as a specific spiritual debt that all the descendants of Adam & Eve are born into. There’s quite a breadth of understanding there.
It seems to me that most of these don’t require a physical transmission of anything because they are attempting to explain a spiritual condition. Some particular versions of original sin, might, but I think they would be rare. Historically, I can see how it could have been common thinking that it was a physical transmission, but that’s different than requiring it I’d think.
Genealogy, on the other hand, speaks more to relationship, social environment, familial context, etc. that seems more relevant to the concept of original sin. Even still, “transmission” in a genealogical view could mean anything from “we inherit a cultural milieu” to “there’s a sin gene” so I’m not sure it’s that helpful, other than if we are using it to specifically using it in contrast with “genetic” transmission.
I personally think the best we Christians can do is take a look at Scripture and the history of its interpretation and, along with the insights of those who’ve come before us, make the best sense we can and be willing to leave some things up to mystery and future generations. I’m not entirely sure what original sin is, but I do feel like there is much about humanity that isn’t what it should be or is meant to be. Maybe this discord originated in a historical event we call the Fall, or maybe the Fall just describes it, I’m not really sure. It’s at least, in my opinion, worth sketching out the possibilities and exploring their strengths and weaknesses.
3 Likes
They may not require physical transmission, but they do require transmission of some kind. So what is it?
GAE pretty much makes the sin gene irrelevant, but it also makes the cultural milieu irrelevant. Remember that in order to reach all the world, Adam’s descent must rely on rare migrants serially passing on descent over long distances. Cultural transmission in those circumstances can’t explain much, certainly not transfer of original sin to the Americas and Australia, much less Tasmania.
So far, the possibilities have only weaknesses, not strengths.
3 Likes
John
We are speaking of magical ideas here. You inability to accept this basic limitation on analysis is rather striking. How does one analyze magical ideas?
I myself have posted a few times on a basic principle of metaphysics: if Original Sin comes with the Soul, at our very birth (or even conception?), then the “transmission” is by the source of the soul - - aka, from God Himself.
Lots of Christians can’t stomach that idea … just as I do not invest any credibility to the idea of original sin.
John,
The closest principle already in the Christian literature, that hews closest to the elements you identify in the paragraph (above) is: Federal Headship.
If you do not think that the idea of original sin is credible why are you supporting a literal Adam (and Eve)?
Well, it may not be a “thing”. In some of the interpretations original sin is a “state”. There wouldn’t necessarily be any transmission in that case.
It could also be a spiritual/social transmission, as “sin leads to more sin”. In this view, the Christian view would be that we need Jesus to “break the cycle”.
So I basically see 3 options:
- original sin represents the state of humanity post-Fall. There is nothing transmitted, but instead speaks to the spiritual condition that all humanity finds itself.
- original sin represents the perpetuation of sin within humanity, post-Fall. This is a social/spiritual transmission.
- original sin represents the guilt of Adam’s sin in the Fall, spread throughout humanity. This could be seen as physical, genetic, or purely spiritual transmission.
I’m glad you asked me that question!
I spent 2+ years (over at BioLogos) using every gram of evidence I could find that would make a difference with the YEC mindset. Nothing really made a difference.
And then @swamidass explained: there’s really no reason to make the choice so stark for Evangelicals. We don’t have to have JUST TWO SIDES… (either Evolution-with-No-Creation versus Creation-with-No-Evolution). We can offer a third choice: a little bit of creation (Adam & Eve) WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE for Evolution!
When I realized that having a 3rd choice can make all the difference over the course of a generation or two, I had no choice but to come along and support Joshua in whatever ways I could.
The starkness of the 2-position argument is really the fault of the scientists a century ago. They should not have been so absolute about these matters. And now we are paying the price today, in politics, social strife and a host of other things.
Nice analysis!
But I’m not sure where I would put my God-issues-Souls-with-Original-Sin. Would that fit into one of your three categories? Or would it represent a 4th (Brooks-Twisted) category?
I was thinking 3. Of course there are lots of sub-options and nuance. 
Yes, of course. But in your typology, does mine belong to one of the 3? Or is it really a completely different “thing”?
What do you mean by “magical ideas”?
Then is there any purpose served by GAE? God places stained souls as he wishes, for whatever reason, and there’s no particular reason he should be bound by genealogy. It’s a silly idea, and we apparently agree on that.
Would you agree that this idea too makes no sense?
Why would you suppose that states don’t have to be transmitted? How else would they come to be?
That’s cultural transmission, which suffers from the problem I have pointed out above.
That seems to be senseless. Why does humanity have this state, and how do those unborn at the time gain the state? It answers nothing.
Cultural transmission, again.
Why should guilt be inherited, particularly if one’s connection to the sinner is as one of millions of ancestors of the same age?
None of these options actually deals with the question.
1 Like
John,
Federal Headship makes perfect sense within the Christian paradigm.
Christianity is a magic-based religion. Magic, on one level or another, “makes sense” - - if it didn’t, nobody would believe it. You work way too hard to apply your form of rationality to every religious idea you encounter. And then you wonder why it doesn’t make sense to you.
You have to step outside the bounds of Western rationality … and go into the realm of Western metaphysics (aka, Western Magic).
If you won’t do that, you are never going to grasp many of the things that Christians take for granted… which for some includes Federal Headship.
What do you THINK I mean by magical ideas? Take a stab at describing what you THINK I mean. And if you are close, then I will make the few adjustments to have it be RIGHT ON TARGET.
I was thinking it wouldn’t have to be transmitted because it isn’t a property of the individual, but the whole. Perhaps it is emergent, perhaps it has been imposed externally. I agree that a state could also be transmitted though, from person to person. I just was thinking specifically about your question of how it could be a thing but not transmitted.
The why is “Adam & Eve and the Fall”. Those unborn at the time gain the state by being born into it. I am American, I was born American. There is no American gene, there isn’t anything genetically or physically that makes me American. It’s simply by virtual of being born in a particular place and time, in a particular society. I see how in some sense you could consider that a transmission, but it is certainly quite different than something particular to me (like the genes I inherited from my father and mother).
1 Like
I gotta say… I like that analogy!