|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 22, 2009 10:57:30 GMT -8
i like this analogy. but i would like my view on this to be clear. the crack baby is condemned to a crack addiction, but is not guilty of the sin of the mother. however, if that baby later does crack, then they ARE guilty, but for their own sin.
however, i dont think that this is to say that our propensity to sin comes from inheited genes and such. now, we can have a propensity of a certain sin because our mothers or fathers do it (like issac lying that his wife was is sister, like abraham did) but that sin was not an inherited trait.
however, we do all have an "ego" where we do anything to profit ourselves, and not others. where we love ourselves, and even lust after ourselves, but we do not love others. we become a glutton to ourselves. this is the root of evil. we sin because the law says to love ohters, but we want only to love ourselves. the point of the law is to love others, but we sin because we only want to love ourselves. however, most people point out that the ego is acquired and learned. psychology especially. we gain our ego from the poeople around us. it is not a gene thing.
now, the Torah condemns but also redeems (in the since that yeshua is the living Torah), it gives death, but it also gives life. God tells us to choose life. The Torah condemns so that we would be in need of redemtion from the mashiach, the one who would follow it completeyly so that he could take the curses for us, and redeem us through it. it gives us death not because it is not Holy, but because we arent, for we disobey it and that causes it to give death. but it is made unfollowable without the spirit so that we would be reconciled to God.
now, why he chose this complex process is a mystery, another subject.
but the point is that we do NOT inherit sin. nor do we inherit th epropensity of that sin. however, we do inherit the lust of that sin after we ourselves commit sin. the crack baby only wants to do crack because he knows his mother does it. but he is not addicted to it unless he himself makes the action to sin. and this addiction eventually leads us to the redeeming christ, offered by God all mighty, the judge of those of the resurectino unto life.
rambling again. but i love this subject.
shalom -john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 22, 2009 22:23:50 GMT -8
I am currently in agreement with this statement.
Propensity towards sin is the same thing as an evil inclination. And I do believe we all inherit that in Adam. Inherited inclination toward sin is different than inherited guilt.
Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
This inclination is born with us.
So, you're saying it's nurture not nature? Are you then saying that if we dropped off a bunch of infants on a desert island and somehow (theoretically) cared for them to maturity without influencing them in any negative way that they would grow up not having a propensity toward evil? I don't think that is realistic.
I definitely think that problematic sinful behaviors can have genetic as well as environmental triggers. Why are you so against the idea?
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 23, 2009 11:14:11 GMT -8
i am not so against the idea. i just have a very devoleoped view on this and so i want to make my views clear.
i am aware tha tthe propensity towards sin and the evil inclination were the same. but i dont think that this propensity towards sin was inherited through genes and such. i dont think that it is the guilt of sin either, as you said. but i deny the fact that it was inherited and not brought out into us.
this is what the KJV says, closer to the literal translation:
behold i was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother concieve me
so inother words, he was RAISED in iniquity. he SHAPED to be a sinner. and even his own mother concieved him out of SIN. it is not saying that she bore him and he was sinful, but that she was sinful and in sin when she bore hiim. it was to increase his case to God that he was sinful and that God was full of grace to wash these sins from his account.
well firstly, no. i think that psychologically we have to look and realize that they will still develop ego. and ego is what causes us to sin, as i ahve exlplained elsewhere. we sin because we want to benefit only ourselves. also, we have the need for God, so they will probably go into idolotry not understandging the nature around them, and worshipping it. i thnink that this is unrealistic. however, our ego is often influenced by the people around us- often, i mean always- so we influence the people who are born into this world. we give them examples to follow, and out of love they follow us. so we help them develop their evil inclination, but the evil inclination itself is not totally caused by you.
so let me explain real quick that i do beleive the cause of the evil inclination, the ego, is something that we all develop naturally. however, it still develops, for we are not born with a conscious ego, we are born with unconcious instincts to survive which do shape our ego. so i dont think a baby starts out with an evil inclination, but they all develop one through childhood. now, the ego in itself is not bad either. we need this evil inclination and this ego to lead us to God. but we must control the ego, the I, with the You. we must beenfit ourselves but not only ourselves... other too.
so i do beleive that the inclination is a natural development, caused by things that ARE inherited. but it develops from things that are inherited- it is not inherited itself.
so i guess i explained my position.
shalom- john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 28, 2009 13:14:53 GMT -8
yeshuafreak wrote:
What is your theory as to why we all have this propensity?
So, if this is all simply a "natural" thing, did Adam and Eve have any way of avoiding it? And why did it take eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to initiate their 'ego'?
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 28, 2009 19:45:08 GMT -8
Ahh, so our "ego" and our sin nature was given to us by God himself and is not the product of the fall?
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Sept 1, 2009 8:06:50 GMT -8
josh- a tree did not make people live forever just like a tree did not initiate their ego. it was allegorical. the tree of life was Torah and Yeshua, who they believed in to inherit eternal life. the tree of knoweldge of good and evil (etz HaDaat) is sin. they had and ego as well. and through it, they sinned. they may have actually avoided the ego, as it is only developed as fully as ours when they are around an egosistic enviroment. they probably started fully developing the ego when the commands not to eat of etz hadaat was given- that is what R. Shaul suggests.
he suggests that our flesh works enmity against the commandment and sins through it (Ro.6-8). the commandment is goog holy and just (Romans 3), but our pasions (Yetzer hara) turn into sin, and sin when fully bred brings forth death.(James 3/4)
so the ego IS given by God, but it only fully develops when a command is given. you know how children just do something because the parent tells them not to? thats what we do. and it is the Ego. we are not to have an ego conrol us, as it does when we work enmity against a command, but we need to have enough "ego" to live. even then, it is not really "ego."
if you want to know more about the concept of the "ego" outside of religion and original sin, i suggest reading "a new earth" by ekhart tolle, as well as philosophical and psychological studies and writings.
shalom
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 1, 2009 16:28:22 GMT -8
What was the command if there was no literal tree? What specific command did they break in your opinion?
Hmmmm, I haven't read Tolle, but I have read some pretty scathing critiques of his viewpoint.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Sept 1, 2009 19:49:23 GMT -8
www.spirituality.com The section of Science and Health with Key to Scripture by Mary Baker Eddy ha a very interesting commentary on the whole "Fall" issue. I love late 19th Century Protestant Cults, they are the cause of, and solution to, all theological debate!
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Sept 2, 2009 7:46:46 GMT -8
"pretty scathing critiques"
yes i know. but i like his viewpoint. it complies with psychology at the very least.
except for his pain-body doctrine. i believe in the pain- body, but not how he explains it.
"What was the command if there was no literal tree? What specific command did they break in your opinion?"
we dont really know. the command could have been simply "do not sin." Sin brings death. if anything, the sin adam and chavah probably commited was sexual immorality. but the point is this: they did something wrong.
appreciate the historical metaphor for what it is. use it for halakhah and such, but do not try to claim that it is literal history- that is nonsense. some of it might be, but as a whole it definiely isnt. i wont get into that here though.
shalom- john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 2, 2009 12:13:51 GMT -8
I find it ironic that this is coming from the very person who is averse to looking at eschatology figuratively  At least most of Genesis (with the possible exception of the creation account/ fall of man) reads like history. Revelation doesn't even attempt to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Sept 6, 2009 8:04:24 GMT -8
yeah i can see the irony when it is misunderstood.
my point was not to say that the writer did not intend it to be historical, my point was that to a believer we must not undersatnd the story literally. the writer of ezekiel intended the stuff he wrote to be considered as literal history (revelation is a WHOLE different matter- it is totally symbolic and we cannot know what many of the symbols mean), and there is still scentific, textual, theological reasons for this to be true.
also, alot of my views have changed in the last few weeks, much more within two years. i should tell you my story more and you will realize that you cant ever decide my future theology from my previous texts.
shalom
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 6, 2009 19:00:51 GMT -8
I'd like to know how you're so certain about this- but that's a matter for another thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Sept 7, 2009 15:05:31 GMT -8
yeah, but i will get to it. i am currently a little rusty on the eschatology subject- i am more concerned with how i live now than how i will live later. but i will be developing certain parts of my theology soon and that is on the list.
|
|
