One of the many, many, many, ... (have I made my point?) mistakes made by xtianity is the concept of "original sin". First and foremost, is the tragically mistaken and damaging idea that sin causes one to fall from grace. Honestly!? That religion purports to pray to their father who art in heaven (among other divine beings, of course) and they also purportedly also claim to pray to his only (sic/sick) son -- whom he (the father) stood by and allowed others to murder. Why? Because he loved those others sooo much. Uh huh. I have children and grandchildren. All of them have transgressed my will from time to time. Sometimes its cute and expected. Sometimes its awful and painful. It has never, ever, not even once, not even entered the realm of possibility (have I made my point?) caused a diminution of my love for them nor to lose an iota of grace that I feel for them. So their deity is less loving and forgiving than me. Uh huh.
The second thing, though, is they can't even count. What was the first sin? Having relations? Nope; Adam and Chava had Kayin and Hevel (along with their three sisters) long before eating the forbidden fruit and being expelled from the garden. Eating the forbidden fruit? Nope; no one was punished for that. Really. Look back at the narrative carefully. HaShem first gave Adam a chance to explain himself. Adam should have said, "I sinned and I am sorry." Instead he blamed HaShem for giving him a bad helper; for which Adam was punished. Then HaShem asked Chava and she should have said, "I sinned and I am sorry." Instead, she blamed the sneaky serpent -- the original "the devil made me do it". In other words, she followed her own desires instead of reason, for which she was punished. Who's left? Ah... the sneaky serpent.
The serpent didn't even get a chance to excuse his behavior. He could have said, "Hey! What did I do?! She should have listened to You, Oh Lord; not me!" That would have been true. Maybe he would have even said, "I sinned and I am sorry." It doesn't matter, because he was not asked. The serpent was just summarily punished. But, "wait!", you'll opine with deep empathy for the snake; "He was never even told not to try to entice Chava to sin! That's not fair!"
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... (have I made my point?), the fact that enticing others to sin is obviously bad. So obviously bad, in fact, that it doesn't need a warning and it doesn't get a chance to explain itself.
Ok. Interesting Bible story about a talking snake. What does that have to to with us, today? There is a specific, Torah prohibition -- one of the 613 mitzvos -- not to enable someone to sin, that goes under the title of "don't put a stumbling block before the blind." For example, opening your liquor cabinet for an alcoholic. Chazal added a layer around that making it forbidden to help them even when they could do it themselves. For example, opening the bottle for them. There is, however, no specific Torah prohibition that forbids talking the alcoholic into taking a drink in the first place. That's the occupation of the sneaky serpent; it is obviously wrong, needs no specific prohibition nor even warning.
Who would do such a thing? This is an extremely sensitive issue when it comes to kiruv; bringing Jews back to Judaism. If someone drives to my house on Shabbos; it is distressing and causes me pain and discomfort. Once they are there, though, they are treated as any wonderful guest. But invite them to drive over? Entice them to sin? Oh no; that never ends well for anyone.
The second thing, though, is they can't even count. What was the first sin? Having relations? Nope; Adam and Chava had Kayin and Hevel (along with their three sisters) long before eating the forbidden fruit and being expelled from the garden. Eating the forbidden fruit? Nope; no one was punished for that. Really. Look back at the narrative carefully. HaShem first gave Adam a chance to explain himself. Adam should have said, "I sinned and I am sorry." Instead he blamed HaShem for giving him a bad helper; for which Adam was punished. Then HaShem asked Chava and she should have said, "I sinned and I am sorry." Instead, she blamed the sneaky serpent -- the original "the devil made me do it". In other words, she followed her own desires instead of reason, for which she was punished. Who's left? Ah... the sneaky serpent.
The serpent didn't even get a chance to excuse his behavior. He could have said, "Hey! What did I do?! She should have listened to You, Oh Lord; not me!" That would have been true. Maybe he would have even said, "I sinned and I am sorry." It doesn't matter, because he was not asked. The serpent was just summarily punished. But, "wait!", you'll opine with deep empathy for the snake; "He was never even told not to try to entice Chava to sin! That's not fair!"
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... (have I made my point?), the fact that enticing others to sin is obviously bad. So obviously bad, in fact, that it doesn't need a warning and it doesn't get a chance to explain itself.
Ok. Interesting Bible story about a talking snake. What does that have to to with us, today? There is a specific, Torah prohibition -- one of the 613 mitzvos -- not to enable someone to sin, that goes under the title of "don't put a stumbling block before the blind." For example, opening your liquor cabinet for an alcoholic. Chazal added a layer around that making it forbidden to help them even when they could do it themselves. For example, opening the bottle for them. There is, however, no specific Torah prohibition that forbids talking the alcoholic into taking a drink in the first place. That's the occupation of the sneaky serpent; it is obviously wrong, needs no specific prohibition nor even warning.
Who would do such a thing? This is an extremely sensitive issue when it comes to kiruv; bringing Jews back to Judaism. If someone drives to my house on Shabbos; it is distressing and causes me pain and discomfort. Once they are there, though, they are treated as any wonderful guest. But invite them to drive over? Entice them to sin? Oh no; that never ends well for anyone.
Comments