Mankind’s version
Adam: “That woman YOU gave to be with me gave me the fruit…”
Eve: “The devil made me do it”
God ‘s truth as revealed to James:
“each one is tempted when he is drawn away by HIS OWN desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin.
Onesimus Files 
While this is true, that people sin based on their own desire(s), it isn’t the same as anything bad happening in a person’s life being because they desired it and sinned. And, for example, while it can be read that Lot’s daughters chose to commit sin [incest, not sex (by which I mean sex itself isn’t sin but that sex with certain people is forbidden)] — out of which exact desire might seem a bit unclear but reportedly because of wanting to have children where there were no other men or even another man — and they had sex with their father, it doesn’t follow that any party to incest has desired it (by which I’m not arguing I think Lot was innocent as that also is unclear, but he might have been innocent of that*).
I won’t try and describe many instances or circumstances to be very specific. But I’m primarily speaking of the ways in which incests normally happen. And incest is both direct and more indirect (creating the possibility of one party not even knowing — I mean not knowing incest is happening to them, while knowing sex is happening is more likely). You will have to read the listings in the books of law. [I wonder if all of these apply/applied to all gentiles. I say this because I have read that American Indians would marry two sisters; further, it can read this was later outlawed, but Jacob was married to sisters while they were both alive. But they (Native Americans) might also marry a woman and her aunt, to care for more of the family. But incest isn’t only about marriage. Yet, an incestuous marriage could result from trickery and even rape.] So, anyway, what is more common is an older sibling taking advantage of a younger one. And that’s not the worst of it, and I won’t go on. (But I will say we can see the total view that sin is desired is problematic and can be perverse.)
I think the inclusion of the story of Lot and what the daughters did is instruction (on many things, but what I was going to say was) to consider more than what we would assume.
* He sure wasn’t innocent overall.
I’m going to have to do some reading because I saw a heading about Lot’s four daughters. Apparently, I’m not putting “two and two” together. Another heading concerned why Lot offered up his daughters for gang rape. That part I know about, although it’s usually gone over like: well, yeah, why wouldn’t he.
That line could also be taken in a sort of Buddhist way… don’t desire.
I was pondering, while I made some coffee, about the story of Job some more. And it crossed my mind that I have been faced with the shock of a Christian person saying to me that a person would have sex with a parent if that was the only way to carry on the population. I suppose the only way for a person to be saying this is if it is somehow of interest to him to do it or tempt someone to think it. And that was how he sounded, like he was tempted or he liked the idea of sin in general. I was truly stunned and couldn’t believe he was serious, but he continued to try and convince me he was right. He used words like somehow pro-creation trumps all. I was horrified. Note two things: in real life, he hasn’t been so pro-creation (or focused on bringing up children); he is also the kind of person who makes arguments for AI in the form of fabricated humans.
I think people get different things out of reading bible stories. One person goes, Wow, that was crazy. Another says, I get it; do what ya gotta do. And the latter is bolstered by rationalizing what Lot did. Now, you will have people who are emboldened to self preservation or the will of their sight and others who have been steeled to put up with abuse and sin (because their submission is not sin as they’ve been taught — or the sin against them is supposedly not as bad as some other sin… as taught).
Marleen the point I intended to make was that we are responsible for our own sin. We can’t blame others for it.
We are the only ones who can choose to give in to temptation and by doing so commit sin, no one can force us to do so.
There’s nothing wrong with desire – until that desire is for something contrary to God’s will.
No one can force us to if we are free (and know it) and others are honest.
It can be a matter of how one looks at it. If the person wasn’t free (and not being told the truth is a type of not being free, especially if it’s specifically relevant), then it could be said the person didn’t sin or isn’t sinning. I think that person is in a bad place anyway, even if not imputed with sin. But I have heard more than one preacher say it doesn’t matter what’s really the case, if you’re convicted it’s just how it is. Plus, if a man rapes a girl (I don’t remember how the law reads about calling out), and her father decides he’s not going to object* to her being married to the man, and her mother doesn’t admit that she herself has had sex with that man, the girl is in a life of crap. She didn’t choose to sin. But yeah, the situation is sick. There are options, I suppose, but sin would be involved because she won’t be obeying her father. She could run away (because she doesn’t want to spend her life with a rapist); now, besides disobeying her father, she’s vulnerable to more rape.
And what was Jesus talking about when he said a man causes his wife to commit adultery if he divorces her? Men don’t have to think about these things, because they can theoretically marry ten (or however many) wives. (Without it being sin. They just might not qualify for something else in which they could be interested.) And, women would often gladly be without a husband (particularly a horrible one they got stuck with or a man who really wants to divorce). In today’s world (and in certain places only) that is often possible (though sometimes really not). Again, girls and women are subject to their environment and situation. And what does a woman do if she has children to think of? Men in these kinds of situations aren’t usually the sort that give much thought to that. So the women have to figure out the tightrope walk. Not infrequently, such men don’t want to divorce but abuse. You, woman, nevermind the exhortation to get married so you will be married and not sin.
I don’t mean to go commit adultery — except that’s what the girl would be seen as doing if she runs away and marries someone else. What I do mean is the scenario is only satisfaction for a man. If, at some point, she gets used to him and finds sexual something she gets out of him, it will have still likely warped her mind to deal with that. And if she finds out about the mother aspect, now she better cut the desire.
However, I found something that likely wouldn’t be acceptable if I said it (as a woman):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_in_the_Bible
These lists only mention relationships with female relatives; … this implies that the list is addressed to men.
(So, it could be said the responsibility is on the men. Each knows what he himself is doing at least.)
* The law reads that these two people will marry unless the father objects.
The law also reads that the mother and the man could already be dead, but they aren’t.
The man has now committed other sins besides adultery; the rape and touching that girl (the daughter of the mother), even if it hadn’t been rape. And this marriage shouldn’t happen but will. Another way out, such as if the girl finds out about the mother and man, would be suicide (if her father is not going to listen to her about the family secret like he didn’t listen or care about rape if he even can do anything about it now) — if there are no children to abandon (and possibly to avoid bringing any into his home).
Now, the bible allows for slavery and masters, and it says things like a man would have to leave his family (if his time ends so he can leave) if his wife belonged to the master before the man got there. There’s something comparable for a slave woman, but I’m not looking up the specifics right now.
(I’m noting this because women seem often at the mercy or enslaved or incarcerated. Maybe a woman in this situation with the horrible husband could still leave without it being the end of the world… just speaking of what would be sin, especially by Law, not to say women want to leave children.)
Well, anyway, I found a few verses I will share.
Mark 9:42 ESV
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. [It goes on here about cutting off a hand or pulling out an eye and so on.]
Ephesians 4:14 ESV
So that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
[I see this as part parable. It’s not about children rejecting correct doctrine or God but comparing adults to those who don’t have the experience or wherewithal to not be tricked.]
Ephesians 6:4 ESV
Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
James 1:13 NIV
When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; …
I truly love the subjects of discussion, and the insights towards them, that I so frequently learn here. Iron sharpens iron: so I’m grateful to God for this site, and for those of you He gathers here.
I started a response here a few days ago which got into some personal history, which sparked some self-examination, which led to checking some scriptures, which resulted in some meditation…all of which eventually seemed better suited as a blog-post, (“Heart Problem,” at https://cross-purposes.blogspot.com/) than a long discursive comment in this discussion. Sparking thoughts that turn into blog-posts is another frequent experience of reading here.
All that to say I find (after years of pondering the question) that “mankind’s version” of sin is invariably to place the blame on someone else…exactly as you say. And exactly as James says, that sin is actually a result of our OWN “desire” (in my blog about searching for the answer why people believe lies…”because they WANT to”).
In the Garden of Eden context, it also seems worth noting the essential nature of the prototypical lie by which “the father of lies” deceived Adam and Eve to DESIRE to sin. Not by holding out to them something contrary to what God Himself created for them, that they would be like Him…but persuading them there was another way than God’s way to secure that desirable end.
Satan’s lie, that sin will have good results, seems to me a moral parallel to Trump’s premise that lies and wrong-doing witll “make America great again.” It’s still successful for deceiving mankind.
Hi, Steve. I think there are different situations. And the one in the Garden is pretty unique (even if parallels can sometimes be drawn, it is not every situation). Also, as I hoped would be seen, James says God doesn’t tempt (which doesn’t mean no one else does, for one thing, but can be extended where, for instance, a woman simply being in a man’s presence [even without another witness] doesn’t translate that she tempts him or wants him or whatever could be projected onto her). And what James says indicates that if a desire arose within someone to sin it was their own desire, not from God — and I will add the question of whether the man sins if he rapes her while he says in his heart he will marry her).
To move on to something that seems less extreme… women have been told to submit to their husbands. Maybe they have been taught wrongly. If a husband says to his wife that she should use her vote a certain way, should she? We have a higher percentage of Evangelical males who voted for Trump than females (still high but not as high); the women might have more insight or character (this isn’t a given but a possibility). They also might, some of them, have disobeyed their husbands. I will give you an example of how people work around the rules we are under. For so long, it has been taught that women are to submit to their husbands and keep the home. Michelle Bachman said she could work and run for office because her husband told her to do so.
Of course, this begs the question of whether electing her was not electing her but her husband and his decisions (not that I was impressed positively with her either). What is the desire a woman has (each, respectively) that leads her to vote the way her husband says or to not vote the way her husband says she should? When women submit on a daily basis, they are always at odds with their own desires in the sense that they are most likely losing touch with what their desires even are or might be. (There are many exceptions to this. It is certainly visible that not all women are having to rethink what they want based on submission even if there is a token of submission in saying the words that the husband will be asked permission or consulted.)
This is interesting. You know most preachers say the goal was wrong [I don’t say this to indicate that what most preachers say is right], that Satan was tempting Adam and Eve to be like God the way Satan had wanted to be — that Satan was telling a half-truth, that they would know good and evil (and that it isn’t good that Adam and Eve would know good and evil) but that in so trying to be like God would be making themselves god/s.
…… prototypical lie by which “the father of lies” deceived Adam and Eve to DESIRE to sin. Not by holding out to them something contrary to what God Himself created for them, that they would be like Him…but persuading them there was another way than God’s way to secure that desirable end.
Satan’s lie, that sin will have good results, seems to me a moral parallel to Trump’s premise that lies and wrong-doing witll “make America great again.” It’s still successful for deceiving mankind.
It’s quite a comparison.
I think the comparison is in the equivalent moral assertion of satan, and the Trump campaign: that doing WRONG will produce GOOD results.
It seems the prototypical lie, making satan “the father of lies,” since it falsifies God’s most basic moral law.
It brings to mind a more recent election where Christians got behind a man with a very dubious reputation regarding alleged behaviour towards under-aged girls.
On a political commentary show on Australian TV, one guest was asked to speculate on why such a man should get so much support from US evangelicals.
He could only suggest that it was the man’s (claimed) anti-abortion stance – that the lives of countless unborn babies were seen as more important than the abuse of a few girls.
Apart from the fact that no politician has been able to act effectively to do anything about abortion, if this is the case, then the evangelical supporters would be falling for the lie that its better to choose the lesser of two evils. However in recent cases, it hasn’t only been a personal choice between two evils, but an active support and promotion of one of the evils.
What a co-inky-dink (not). Was just reading this week another Christian Aussie’ blog where he quoted Spurgeon: that given a choice between two evils, we should choose neither (which I’d never heard).
The “lesser of two evils” argument was the single greatest rationale I heard last year from Christian friends voting for Trump: and had to reject on all levels. One being that in the U.S. we can legally NOT vote. But more importantly, that the “lesser of two evils” rationale goes beyond (hopefully temporary) spiritual blindness. We’ve all let down our spiritual discernment guard, and been deceived to choose some evil by being persuaded (the enemy IS “the father of lies”) an evil is actually “good.” Probably that is typical of most of our garden-variety sins.
But freely choosing evil, KNOWING it’s evil, is willful rebellion (of which satan is also the father), against God’s sovereignty and moral law.
Your comment, that foolish resignation at “having to” do evil is light-years less than active support for evil, hits the nail on the head. And thanks for that fuller wisdom on the matter !
Blessing to all, Steve
Yes, they even stooped to coming up with rationalizations for what the dubious man had done. Somehow, even if they could convince some people it made sense for an official in his thirties to “date” a girl of fourteen, who he met when he assured her mother he would watch over her while the mother entered a courtroom for a custody hearing (which the man had talked the mother into believing the girl wouldn’t want to go into), his supporters (and he) lack the self-awareness that they are defining a date as molestation and more… and, in another case, attempted rape of a sixteen-year-old (along with kidnapping — as she thought she was accepting a simple ride home from an adult who then did not head in the direction of her home — then abandonment on a cold parking lot, with threats). I suspect he himself is aware, or was before he went into a sick ramped up self-preservation mode. Dating is calling yet another girl, who had not asked for any such attention, through her principal, out of her trig class? Dating is a grown man, expected to be responsible, plying teenagers with alcohol? And this (only some of what was reported and on display directly, such as when he said he didn’t know the girls at all) was all acceptable in order to get an additional Republican vote in the senate — to make Trump happy. And rationalizing had already occurred to get Trump elected. I agree with the comparison.
The comparison works because of morals as well as American standards (and hypocrisy).
I think I agree with Steve’s different take on the Genesis story too (pro being like God).
I just don’t agree with the totalizing, philosophical, sort of Greek take on desire.
I should clarify. I mean that we have good American standards, and definitions of what America is… but, in the name of a great America, Trump and his ilk are willing to burn it all down.
It has crossed my mind to place here a reminder of what else some of Roy Moore’s fans think a date (his kind) is: an occasion on which one needs to bring along a gun.
But then he’s likely to have one too. Hm.
At least the girl physically in the school was likely safe in her person (as long as she was at school — even if he didn’t want her to focus on studies). [But maybe she needed to have someone (else, a parent, aunt… not him) drive her home or walk with her if that wasn’t the way she usually left school. I’m speculating; I don’t know what she did after school. I normally walked alone to and from school.]