I am “fundamentally” speechless here.
I don’t know what site the Rabbi you mentioned has, and from the looks of it, it seems like an over-rationalization to explain something that really is self-explanatory.
Original sin is knowledge. And knowledge is NOT a sin. It’s what you do with it.
ONLY G-d could create evil because otherwise it could not exist. And from my point of view, who is a mere man to question G-d? For that matter, what man can possibly know the mind of G-d?
If you want to go the extra mile and say for the sake of argument that the BIBLE is EXACTLY the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then I have to ask this question.
WHY would G-d want a bunch of slow, stupid, lemminglike creatures who could never have survived in such a state created in the IMAGE of G-d? It doesn’t follow. Why put the Tree of Knowledge anywhere if we were never supposed to learn?
Just food for thought.
I'm a little speechless myself, as I don't quite know what you're getting at. Boy, did I open up a can of worms or what?
"Original sin" is not knowledge. Before eating from the tree Adam certainly had plenty of knowledge--more than we have today. "Original sin" is a specifically Roman Catholic term used to mean two different things: 1)hache't haqadmon (the first sin, the eating of the fruit by Adam), and 2)hayetzer hara`, the evil inclination which G-d placed within Adam to begin with but over which he lost his original control after the sin.
ONLY G-d could create evil because otherwise it could not exist.
Unfortunately, not everyone understands that. Instead they posit an evil counterpart to G-d who made all the "bad stuff." Note however that G-d is good--He is neither evil (G-d forbid!) nor indifferent to evil (G-d forbid!) but uses evil for His own good and holy purposes in ways we can never understand from the point of view of the physical world.
And from my point of view, who is a mere man to question G-d?
Word! I feel you!
For that matter, what man can possibly know the mind of G-d?
We can't. We can only know what He has chosen to reveal, and that we can be sure of.
If you want to go the extra mile and say for the sake of argument that the BIBLE is EXACTLY the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then I have to ask this question.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Do you mean the chr*stian "bible?" I reject the "new testament" as false. Do you mean the TaNa"KH? It consists of three separate strata: the first written by G-d, the second inspired by the spirit of prophecy, and the under "Divine inspiration." Each of these latter two strata are written under an inspiration that is a step lower than the one that preceded it. The Torah alone was written directly by G-d Himself and is of fully Divine origin.
Do you mean the what is written in the TaNa"KH only and not what is in the Oral Torah? I accept the Oral Torah as having been given to Israel at Sinai at the very beginning and reject what Catholics call "sola scriptura." I most definitely believe in the legitimate, immemorial Authoritative Oral Interpretive Tradition, though not to any pretenders to that title. If you are asking if I believe that we know everything there is to know, I say of course not. If you are asking if I believe the Torah or Na"KH is a mere human work that contains mistakes, then no, I don't.
WHY would G-d want a bunch of slow, stupid, lemminglike creatures who could never have survived in such a state created in the IMAGE of G-d?
I don't know. Since I never suggested such a thing ('Adam HaRi'shon "slow" and "stupid"???), perhaps you can hunt down whoever you are arguing with and correct him.
It doesn’t follow. Why put the Tree of Knowledge anywhere if we were never supposed to learn?
Just food for thought.
Ah, you're implying that G-d didn't really mean it when He forbade Adam to eat of the tree. I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that. At the same time the eating was foreknown from all eternity, already written in the Torah, and governed at all times by G-d's All-Embracing Providence.
You ask me how this is explained. I'll tell you:
I don't know! (Tevye reference)
I hope this response satisfied whatever issues you were raising.
I try not to comment on religious threads, but I’m sure ZC will engage you. I obviously don’t accept the Christian concept of original sin, and don’t know what the Rabbi’s case is regarding Christians. While I understand the concept if the conclusion is that support for Israel shouldn’t be accepted from Christians I doubt I would agree, but if it’s on the web a link might be interesting to read. IMO that’s a secular rather than religious issue.