RE: Was sin necessary for knowledge?
November 16, 2018 at 6:31 pm
(This post was last modified: November 16, 2018 at 6:36 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
It's hard for me to answer this because I don't adhere to the literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story. I think we evolved from apes, and at some point we became intelligent enough to understand right from wrong. That is when sin became a thing. So on the contrary I would say knowledge is necessary for sin. Animals are innocent because they don't have knowledge of good and evil and therefore cannot sin. We evolved from animals. At one point we couldn't sin, but as we became more intelligent, we obtained moral culpability and thus the ability to sin.
This is kind of a rushed response because I'm in the middle of stuff as I'm posting, but hopefully it makes sense.
Hah, I made my response that knowledge is necessary for sin before I read this.
Great minds! I like you already.
This is kind of a rushed response because I'm in the middle of stuff as I'm posting, but hopefully it makes sense.
(November 16, 2018 at 6:26 pm)tackattack Wrote: Sorry I didn't take the time to get caught up on where we are. IMO to the OP question: Was sin necessary for knowledge?
I would answer no. Sin is not an object, state or a place it is defined as "a transgression of God's law". Therefore knowledge is necessary for sin, but sin isn't necessary for knowledge. You would need a law or something to transgress against to be able to sin.
Hah, I made my response that knowledge is necessary for sin before I read this.
Great minds! I like you already.

"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh