You are currently browsing the American Clarity weblog archives for the day 20. February 2010.
- cultural/racial (16)
- economy (9)
- philosophy (46)
- politics (49)
- Theology (28)
- Uncategorized (2)
- 5. September 2010: Us vs. Them: liberal positions on belonging
- 30. August 2010: Sex and cruelty
- 29. August 2010: The case against "tolerance"
- 28. August 2010: What should the law forbid? (VIDEO)
- 15. August 2010: The eight dumbest arguments for gay advocacy
- 8. August 2010: Reexamining the philosophy of territory
- 2. August 2010: The difference between thievery and taxation: John Locke and Moses speak
- 1. August 2010: Making sense of God's anger, judgment, and forgiveness
- 29. July 2010: Citizens' rights vs global humanitarianism: rights, responsibility, and amnesty
- 25. July 2010: The giving nature of God: proof of His existence in Jesus Christ
Archive for 20. February 2010
Returning to The Garden: biochemical existence, the purpose of the law, and nudity
20. February 2010 by admin.
When I was a 19 year-old non-Christian, I argued that if the Bible was true, sin was God’s fault. At the time, it made sense to me that sin was a result of biochemical survival, in which an entire being’s existence is predicated upon—in theory—selfishness. Without the drive to eat and procreate and amass wealth for safety, the concept of sin seemed meaningless, and I was well aware that Adam and Eve had been eating in the Garden of Eden.
Of course, what eating implies is that the capability for sin already existed before Adam and Eve had eaten the forbidden fruit, since satiation and perfect circumstances prevented the need for selfishness. But when God expelled us from the Garden, that is when our real problems began, making the present-day human evils more His fault than anyone else’s. As a young socialist keen on the idea of crime reduction through government subsistence for all—an idea I now firmly reject—it seemed sensible enough to conclude that God had built us to fail, as though God should have built us differently so that sin wouldn’t have had to exist. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Theology | Print | No Comments »