Eden. Original Sin or Original Virtue?

[Katzpur]

So God wanted A & E to disobey his command. Right?

Well, He did realize it was essential that they do so, so I suppose you could say that.

That would also be why he put Satan right beside Eve. To insure that they ate. Right?

Yup, pretty much. Regardless of how literally one takes the story of the Creation and the events which transpired in Eden, we must ultimately acknowledge that there would have been no need for an Atonement had there not been a Fall, an actual fall from grace by two people who really did live and were given a choice which would impact the billions of their descendants. This makes you stop and think -- or at least it should -- that to believe anything other than that the Fall was a fortunate and anticipated one is to suggest that God was a pretty incompetent planner and this His Plan was derailed before it ever got off the ground. Contrary to popular opinion, Adam and Eve did not create some kind of a glitch in God's plan. When they ate the forbidden fruit, God didn't suddenly have to engage in some kind of frantic damage control. He simply did what He knew all along He would be doing when the time was right. He cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden.

So where is the fall part if everyone was doing what God wanted?

Well, they did become subject to death, both physical and spiritual. They were cast out of Eden, which was essentially a paradise, and made to live out their lives in the world outside the Garden. They'd be subjected to a life full of trials and challenges, none of which they'd have had to deal with in the Garden. For the first time, they would experience illness, failure, disappointment, and every other negative. It would have been quite a traumatic transition for them. According to Mormon theology, though, once their eyes were opened, they began to realize that what ultimately lay in store for them was much more desirable than what they'd left behind.

Surly not the disobedience which would have left A & E too stupid to even reproduce.

Sorry, but I'm not following you here. Would you care to rephrase that?

I would say the ascent began when their eyes were opened, not when they were cast out of Eden. At least that seems to be what God says.

I stand corrected. You are right about that. They were cast out of Eden shortly thereafter, but the ascent did begin when their eyes were opened, and their eyes were opened as soon as they ate the forbidden fruit.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Well, without orignal sin, Jesus would have been unemployed.

If there were no original schools, why do we have teachers?

If Jews and Moses did not respect the serpent or mistrusted it in any way, he would not have made a serpent headed staff nor would the totem of the priest class, the Levies, been the serpent.

There was also a big kerfluffle over a golden calf and yet gilded bovines were included in the Temple.

Care to opine on why you think Christianity reversed the original moral of the story from our elevation to our fall?

Christianity loves to say that good things come from God and we're personally at fault for bad things. The sense of personal responsibility is incredibly arbitrary and convenient.

I don't see the connection here. Moses made the brass snake at the command of G-d after being plagued by snakes, itself a punishment for complaining.
What's that got to do with the snake from the garden of Eden?

God has short term memory loss?

"Don't make graven images. Consider this in the Top Ten."
(5 seconds later)
"Here, make this graven image, plus a gilded box with cherubim on it, plus ..."

If they were not morally blind, why did they not recognize that they were naked before eating of the tree?

As God asked, though, "Who told you you were naked?". In other words, amusingly enough, when Adam and Eve finally understand good and evil, the FIRST thing they do is make up a sin NO ONE had mentioned.

This flaw continues when "sins" include eating certain foods and such. Considering there is murder, rape, genocide, wilful environmental disasters (we moderns aren't the only people to screw things up on purpose for everyone else) ... it's amazing wearing two different types of fabric gets put on the "abomination" list.

 

[Greatest I am]

And regards to you, as well. I clearly thought I was addressing the OP (certainly not you, in fact, if this is the sum total of your contributions to the statement of another person's ideas). I'm not actually in the habit of just spouting off, why would I need to? Neither am I the Greatest; I know Who is (and would never claim that title or position for myself). Moving on, I was attempting to advance a rejection of the Judeo-Christian idea--and any other interpretation of the core faiths--which somehow hold me responsible for the actions, choices and consequences of another soul.

Ok.

But sin was not the issue.

I guess I just have to get used to your style.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Well, He did realize it was essential that they do so, so I suppose you could say that.

Yup, pretty much. Regardless of how literally one takes the story of the Creation and the events which transpired in Eden, we must ultimately acknowledge that there would have been no need for an Atonement had there not been a Fall, an actual fall from grace by two people who really did live and were given a choice which would impact the billions of their descendants. This makes you stop and think -- or at least it should -- that to believe anything other than that the Fall was a fortunate and anticipated one is to suggest that God was a pretty incompetent planner and this His Plan was derailed before it ever got off the ground. Contrary to popular opinion, Adam and Eve did not create some kind of a glitch in God's plan. When they ate the forbidden fruit, God didn't suddenly have to engage in some kind of frantic damage control. He simply did what He knew all along He would be doing when the time was right. He cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden.

Well, they did become subject to death, both physical and spiritual. They were cast out of Eden, which was essentially a paradise, and made to live out their lives in the world outside the Garden. They'd be subjected to a life full of trials and challenges, none of which they'd have had to deal with in the Garden. For the first time, they would experience illness, failure, disappointment, and every other negative. It would have been quite a traumatic transition for them. According to Mormon theology, though, once their eyes were opened, they began to realize that what ultimately lay in store for them was much more desirable than what they'd left behind.

Sorry, but I'm not following you here. Would you care to rephrase that?

I stand corrected. You are right about that. They were cast out of Eden shortly thereafter, but the ascent did begin when their eyes were opened, and their eyes were opened as soon as they ate the forbidden fruit.

From what you are saying, God never planned to let man eat of the tree of life and he always planned to murder A & E by neglect by keeping them from the tree of life. Do I have that right?

You also seem to think a curse of what gives life meaning.

"a paradise, and made to live out their lives in the world outside the Garden. They'd be subjected to a life full of trials and challenges,".

Yes. A life where before there was only brain dead bodies.

I question if Eden was a paradise for man as he was kept in ignorant bliss, and as I said, too stupid to even know how to reproduce. They did not know they were naked without eating of the tree of knowledge.

Not much of a paradise for A & E without sex.

Regards
DL

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Ok. But sin was not the issue. I guess I just have to get used to your style.
Regards, DL

Not trained in debate, I just assumed it was OK to question the original premise of the question, i.e, sin, which figures prominently in the title and in the following discussions. But I'll have to chastise myself for something else, though, and that would be my questionable powers of observation! I didn't realize--perhaps because of the astonishingly quick and snarly quality of your initial response--that my retort was to the OP himself.

Regards,
SVJ

 

[Greatest I am]

.

"FIRST thing they do is make up a sin NO ONE had mentioned."

Christians? Yes.

Not A & E.. They just learned that it was not good manners to go around naked.

They gained a moral sense. They did not sin.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Not trained in debate, I just assumed it was OK to question the original premise of the question, i.e, sin, which figures prominently in the title and in the following discussions. But I'll have to chastise myself for something else, though, and that would be my questionable powers of observation! I didn't realize--perhaps because of the astonishingly quick and snarly quality of your initial response--that my retort was to the OP himself.

Regards,
SVJ

I admit to being short and cranky.

It comes from trying to talk sense into senseless theists.

The issue of Original Sin was a part of the O.P., for sure, but only as it it's appropriateness in the myth. Not so much as to how you felt about sin overall.

Regards
DL

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

.... It comes from trying to talk sense into senseless theists. DL

My, my, my! You do have a way with words which leaves people either guessing or gasping, don't you, Short & Cranky? But even this one statement lacks some clarity; that is, are you saying your arrogance, I mean bad attitude, I mean irritated demeanor is due to the difficulty of talking sense into all theists because there shouldn't be any (theists)? Or all theists have no sense?

 

[Katzpur]

From what you are saying, God never planned to let man eat of the tree of life and he always planned to murder A & E by neglect by keeping them from the tree of life. Do I have that right?

If you seriously think I believe that God "murdered" Adam and Eve, then this conversation is at an end. If you want my input, you're going to have to be a little more sensitive in your choice of words. You've been around long enough to know that I'm entirely willing to answer questions that are posed with a modicum of respect for my beliefs, but that I won't waste my time otherwise. The ball's back in your court.

 

[Greatest I am]

If you seriously think I believe that God "murdered" Adam and Eve, then this conversation is at an end. If you want my input, you're going to have to be a little more sensitive in your choice of words. You've been around long enough to know that I'm entirely willing to answer questions that are posed with a modicum of respect for my beliefs, but that I won't waste my time otherwise. The ball's back in your court.

That was the right wording.

You have heard of how the J Ws used to deny their children a blood transfusion that would save their child's life.
Those children died from neglect and abuse.

Tell me the difference when you switch God for J Ws and A & e for their children. Also change the blood transfusion for the tree of life.

If that is not murder, then what would you name it?

Regards
DL

 

[idav]

Well, He did realize it was essential that they do so, so I suppose you could say that.

Yup, pretty much. Regardless of how literally one takes the story of the Creation and the events which transpired in Eden, we must ultimately acknowledge that there would have been no need for an Atonement had there not been a Fall, an actual fall from grace by two people who really did live and were given a choice which would impact the billions of their descendants. This makes you stop and think -- or at least it should -- that to believe anything other than that the Fall was a fortunate and anticipated one is to suggest that God was a pretty incompetent planner and this His Plan was derailed before it ever got off the ground. Contrary to popular opinion, Adam and Eve did not create some kind of a glitch in God's plan. When they ate the forbidden fruit, God didn't suddenly have to engage in some kind of frantic damage control. He simply did what He knew all along He would be doing when the time was right. He cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden.

Well, they did become subject to death, both physical and spiritual. They were cast out of Eden, which was essentially a paradise, and made to live out their lives in the world outside the Garden. They'd be subjected to a life full of trials and challenges, none of which they'd have had to deal with in the Garden. For the first time, they would experience illness, failure, disappointment, and every other negative. It would have been quite a traumatic transition for them. According to Mormon theology, though, once their eyes were opened, they began to realize that what ultimately lay in store for them was much more desirable than what they'd left behind.

Sorry, but I'm not following you here. Would you care to rephrase that?

I stand corrected. You are right about that. They were cast out of Eden shortly thereafter, but the ascent did begin when their eyes were opened, and their eyes were opened as soon as they ate the forbidden fruit.

In reference to not needing an atonement without a fall, not necessarily we still need atonement for not being perfect the way we were made in the first place.

 

[psychoslice]

Eden was just simply a metaphor for turning away from true inner Being, or true connection the the Cosmos, or you can call it God if like that nasty word.

 

[Katzpur]

That was the right wording.

If that is the case, then this will be my last post to you on the subject.

If that is not murder, then what would you name it?

Regardless of what you may think, dying of old age is not the same thing as being murdered.

 

[Katzpur]

In reference to not needing an atonement without a fall, not necessarily we still need atonement for not being perfect the way we were made in the first place.

My belief is that had Adam and Eve not eaten the forbidden fruit, we would never even have existed. I don't believe they would have had any children had they not transgressed and eaten the forbidden fruit. After all, as Great I am pointed out, they didn't even realize they were naked until after they ate the forbidden fruit. It would have been quite a stretch to think that they'd have figured out how to go about multiplying and replenish the earth. Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that we were not "perfect the way we were made in the first place." I believe we actually were "perfect" with respect to our innocence. I don't believe we were born guilty of something Adam did, but came into this world completely free from all sin. We were not, however, "perfect" if the word is understood to mean "fully mature," nor do we have to potential to be so during this mortal life.

 

[idav]

My belief is that had Adam and Eve not eaten the forbidden fruit, we would never even have existed. I don't believe they would have had any children had they not transgressed and eaten the forbidden fruit. After all, as Great I am pointed out, they didn't even realize they were naked until after they ate the forbidden fruit. It would have been quite a stretch to think that they'd have figured out how to go about multiplying and replenish the earth. Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that we were not "perfect the way we were made in the first place." I believe we actually were "perfect" with respect to our innocence. I don't believe we were born guilty of something Adam did, but came into this world completely free from all sin. We were not, however, "perfect" if the word is understood to mean "fully mature," nor do we have to potential to be so during this mortal life.

Yes I realize we disagree on the premise of being created perfect. I agree with all the rest though, good stuff, the tree to me was bringing an imperfect being closer to God.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes I realize we disagree on the premise of being created perfect.

In what respect do you believe we were created imperfect? I ask because, since you are not a member of any of the Abrahamic faiths, it seems odd to me that you appear to be on the traditional Christian side of this argument. I mean, it looks like you believe in "original sin." Am I wrong about that? If I am, then how would we be born flawed?

 

[Thief]

it was neither original sin or original virtue.

it was a necessary trait.
Man needs to be that creature curious to know....even as death is pending

 

[idav]

In what respect do you believe we were created imperfect? I ask because, since you are not a member of any of the Abrahamic faiths, it seems odd to me that you appear to be on the traditional Christian side of this argument. I mean, it looks like you believe in "original sin." Am I wrong about that? If I am, then how would we be born flawed?

Well I consider myself a gnostic Christian.

No I don't take to original sin but I don't think God made humans to his perfection otherwise we wouldn't need the tree in the first place. To me original sin was a state of becoming enlightened and closer to God via gnosis.

 

[Katzpur]

Well I consider myself a gnostic Christian.

No I don't take to original sin but I don't think God made humans to his perfection otherwise we wouldn't need the tree in the first place. To me original sin was a state of becoming enlightened and closer to God via gnosis.

Thanks! I guess that when I read "Pantheist," I just assumed that you weren't a Christian of any kind.

 

[idav]

Thanks! I guess that when I read "Pantheist," I just assumed that you weren't a Christian of any kind.

It seems to me some of the apostles take different approaches and I think Joseph Smiths views were a bit on the gnostic side like that of Thomas.

Of course there are those who would say that sort of talk is blasphemous but thinking a person can be of god would come naturally to a pantheist.