I was going to respond to the comments in my last post in the comments section, but since it will be long, it makes sense to answer them in a fresh post. You can look at those comments first.
None of the commenters explain why the choice of Adam and Eve is inherited. Why couldn’t God let each individual choose? Maybe Abel wouldn’t have screwed up, why is he damned for what dad did? Couldn’t God offer the tree to him as well? God apparently changed human nature because of the act of these two. The closest to an answer to this is that the act somehow cracked the mold of humanity or a spiritual law caused it to happen. Still, it is necessary that God created that spiritual law or created the world such that a choice of two people would rend the mold. God could have just condemned Adam and Eve and given their children another chance.
Joanna Mallory speaks entirely in terms of an individual wronging God in the present tense (if I choose to be boss of my life, etc.). I can understand that. But there is no explanation of why Adam wronging God should affect me. How is a God that creates all of the suffering in the world because of one act at all just or merciful?
All commenters made some equation between original sin and free will. Of course, Adam and Eve had free will before their sin as well, or they couldn’t have chosen as they did. So their act didn’t create free will. You can use orginal sin just as a metaphor for the fact that humans are free and we often choose to hurt people. I don’t see that as at all useful. We already know that, and it is an unsatisfying “just so” story for its origin. The part about things being perfect prior to the sin is the part that is hard to believe. All explanations for human origins, scientific or mythic, explain the fact that we make bad choices. If original sin is just a metaphor for the fact that we are selfish, then tying it to a specific act is pointless. It makes it worse, because now it is something that could be different, but God imposed it on us because he was pissed at Eve.
I know that the fruit in Genesis 3 is not specified as an apple, nor is the tempter actually called a snake. But it doesn’t matter what the act is, whether it is eating bad fruit or strange sex acts involving serpents. Why change the world because of it?
And none of the commenters explain the necessity of sending Jesus. First, I don’t see how that it really changed anything. When we are “saved” by Jesus, we are just as selfish and sinful. Nothing changed in human nature with the coming of Jesus, and believers are no less selfish than others. If sending God was supposed to save us from original sin, why all of this talk about us still being sinful? If believing in Jesus made us less sinful you might have a case, but clearly Christians are just as prone to sin as anyone else.
But more importantly, there was really no attempt to explain why killing his son is the way to get rid of original sin. There is talk about having someone perfect to take on the sins. How does Jesus dying help at all?
Laurie says that if she wanted to pay for my sin, she would have to be perfect first. I don’t understand. In what way could she possibly pay for my sin, perfect or not? If I hurt someone, only I can pay for my sin, and forgiveness can only come from the person I wronged. How could any third party pay for it? She can offer to die for what I did wrong, but it would be a wasted gesture.
If I wrong someone, then I can be redeemed by that person forgiving me. It must be a free choice between him and me. If my grandpa wronged someone, it doesn’t make any sense for that person to forgive me. They have to forgive my grandpa. And whether it is me or my grandparents, it doesn’t make any sense for that person to say they will forgive me, but only if I kill his son.
If someone is a killer and is condemned to die, would justice be served if someone came in and said I will die in his place? That’s what Jesus did, he offered to die in our place, even though we are the criminals. This is an innocent person, being killed for someone else’s crimes. How does that make sense? How does that fix the crime? Would the victims of the crime somehow feel better by having an innocent person killed?
If the victim of our crime is God himself, then what strange terms are these for his forgiveness? Does it matter if the person making the offer is perfect or not? And if God demands this, why? God could forgive the criminal directly, or he could demand an act of kindness towards those he wronged. Why would God say that I will forgive you, but only if this person is killed instead?
Steve Grove talks a lot about holiness and grace, but those aren’t addressing my question. When he does address my question, this is the core of his answer: “So, the death of the perfect man is what broke the curse of sin - death.” There is no explanation for why this would break that curse. God could have chosen any means to break the curse. Why a scapegoat? It lacks any moral logic. Presumably it is God who sets the criteria for how to break his curse. The curse was originally put on us for a disobedient or selfish choice. Wouldn’t it make more sense then to let humanity prove we can make the right choice?
It just seems like God making strange arbitrary rules. His rule is that if Adam and Eve make the wrong choice, everyone pays for it. This is a rule created by God, not imposed on him. He then sat down and tried to figure out how to fix this mess, and decided that he would send his son, his son would collect the sins, and then by killing him, the sins are gone. That’s the way we can fix our mistake, and he’s sticking with it. He briefly thought about the option of sending his son as a downtrodden man and seeing if humans would lend a hand, but that would be too obvious. The best people can say is this is the way God said would redemption would happen, so that’s it. There is simply an appeal to authority, but no attempt is made to explain the moral logic.
Tags: incarnation, redmption
