No Adam = no Original Sin - right?

[sojourner]

Except when they don't . . . "The body of people" who author doctrines, is itself a doctrine that can be varied in its understanding.

No, it isn't. Ask one sometime. Everyone who disagrees is not part of that body of people.

 

[doppelganger]

How so? Doctrine is not subject to interpretation. it is what it is.

LOL. That's lovely, dear.

 

[sojourner]

LOL. That's lovely, dear.

I don't make the rules, Pumpkin. Perhaps your mirth should be directed at those who maintain the doctrine...

 

[doppelganger]

I don't make the rules, Pumpkin. Perhaps your mirth should be directed at those who maintain the doctrine...

It is . . . there are millions of them . . . including you.

 

[sojourner]

It is . . . there are millions of them . . . including you.

I don't hold to the doctrine of original sin. Therefore, I'm not part of that particular group of people. I'm merely saying that we don't get to come along and redefine something to please ourselves, and pretend that it's "the real deal." The doctrine, itself, as put into place, is immutable. Other doctrines may spring from it -- even similar ones -- but they would be ... different doctrines.

My idea of "original sin" is different from the doctrine that bears that name. I understand the doctrine, and I happen to disagree with it. I do hold to an understanding of an originality of sin -- but not original sin.

 

[doppelganger]

I don't hold to the doctrine of original sin. Therefore, I'm not part of that particular group of people.

It's the same process with the creation of any doctrine.

I'm merely saying that we don't get to come along and redefine something to please ourselves, and pretend that it's "the real deal."

Except that's what people do . . . and they construct elaborate mythologies about why there's a magical "authority" that makes their preferred and pleasing version "true". Dogmas and doctrines are monuments to human egos. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[sojourner]

Except that's what people do . . . and they construct elaborate mythologies about why there's a magical "authority" that makes their preferred and pleasing version "true". Dogmas and doctrines are monuments to human egos. Nothing more, nothing less.

I re-read my statement, and it needs some tweaking. of course everyone thinks their "version" is the "real deal." What I meant by "real deal" was not "the real truth," but "the original doctrine." Only the original doctrine is the original doctrine. One may either agree with it, or disagree with it, but doctrine is doctrine.

As a matter of fact, I disagree with you. Doctrine arises out of common understanding, and is useful, inasmuch as it helps to define a community. Not ego, but identity.

 

[crystalonyx]

One of religion's main problems is the hangups it has related to its obsession with sin.

 

[Azakel]

One of religion's main problems is the hangups it has related to its obsession with sin.

Really, other then Christianity what religions are hangup over sin. I tier of these generalizations.

 

[sojourner]

One of religion's main problems is the hangups it has related to its obsession with sin.

Let's be fair. The obsession with many (not all!) Christians is not over sin, itself, but what to do about sin. We concern ourselves with sin, because we define sin, not as "doing bad things we shouldn't do," but as "separation from God." Since the crux of Xy is reconciliation with God, separation from God naturally is a concern for us.

But you're right, in a way. We can either spend our time loving God, or we can spend our time hating sin. One pulls us toward God gently. The other sends us running off in some ... direction.

If we spent more time acknowledging our inherent goodness, and celebrating our reconciliation, we would have less hang-ups over sin.

 

[crystalonyx]

Let's be fair. The obsession with many (not all!) Christians is not over sin, itself, but what to do about sin. We concern ourselves with sin, because we define sin, not as "doing bad things we shouldn't do," but as "separation from God." Since the crux of Xy is reconciliation with God, separation from God naturally is a concern for us.

But you're right, in a way. We can either spend our time loving God, or we can spend our time hating sin. One pulls us toward God gently. The other sends us running off in some ... direction.

If we spent more time acknowledging our inherent goodness, and celebrating our reconciliation, we would have less hang-ups over sin.

There is no requirement that any god be benevolent, in fact, it's quite unlikely a supposed god would be.

 

[sojourner]

There is no requirement that any god be benevolent, in fact, it's quite unlikely a supposed god would be.

And this addresses my post...how?
BTW, in what way is it "quite likely?"

 

[Arlanbb]

The bible says that Adam/Eve came right after creation and most young Creationist say that happened about 6000 years ago and that the biblical deluge happened about 4500 years ago. The problem is that according to archaeology the biblical deluge never happend 4500 years ago and neither did creation and Adam /Eve happened 6000 years ago. Two lagged people have been walking this earth for at least 50,000 or more years, they lived and died {because of sin???] like we do today. There are cities today that have had people living in them continusually for 5,000 to 7,000 years into their past. How do young creationist explain that problem?

 

[logician]

And this addresses my post...how?
BTW, in what way is it "quite likely?"

I believe you posted

"If we spent more time acknowledging our inherent goodness"

which implies a benevolent god created us?

There certainly is no reason a supposed god be benevolent, in fact, evidence supports that if such a being exists, it is at best neutral, and at worst malevolent.

 

[Muffled]

The bible says that Adam/Eve came right after creation and most young Creationist say that happened about 6000 years ago and that the biblical deluge happened about 4500 years ago. The problem is that according to archaeology the biblical deluge never happend 4500 years ago and neither did creation and Adam /Eve happened 6000 years ago. Two lagged people have been walking this earth for at least 50,000 or more years, they lived and died {because of sin???] like we do today. There are cities today that have had people living in them continusually for 5,000 to 7,000 years into their past. How do young creationist explain that problem?

Juxtaposition does not necessarily denote immediacy in time. I would not agree with a young creation either. I see Adam and Eve as a beginning of our current historical age. Even archeologists would be willing to put that around 5000 BCE which is within reasonable limits of Biblical History. There are interesting studies about flood accounts from non-Biblical sources and every tribe on earth seems to have one. That seems more than co-incidental to me.

 

[Arlanbb]

MUFFLED said that "archaeologist put Adam/Eve at around 5000BCE." I would sure like to know which archaeologist he is refering to? A few years ago I did a survey of over 300 archaeologist from all over the world asking how many of them have found or know of any archaeologist that have found any evidence of a universal Genesis Deluge that has happened on earth in the list 10,000 years. Out of the many replies all but one said they have NOT FOUND ANY EVIDENCE. The one that said YES he thought there was one and it happened at the Black Sea but he was not sure. I have a book called ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE LAND OF THE BIBLE FROM 10,000 DOWN TO 586 BCE, by one of the top archaeologist from Israel, and he lists all the people who have been living in Palistine staring from 12,000 years years ago to 586 BCE and there is not ONE reference to a Genesis Deluge in his book or a creation of about 5000 BCE.
As to all the flood stories from around the world who says they refer to the biblical deluge story. There is a difference between a flood story and a world wide Deluge story. Out of all those flood stories only three are like a deluge story and two of these were written up to 1000 years before the biblical deluge story and according to over 300 archaeoligest none of these 4 stories are true. So it sure looks like your Adam/Eve story is just a myth when you have no foundation for it. It is nice to know that you build your history on myths. arlan b.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

MUFFLED said that "archaeologist put Adam/Eve at around 5000BCE." I would sure like to know which archaeologist he is refering to? A few years ago I did a survey of over 300 archaeologist from all over the world asking how many of them have found or know of any archaeologist that have found any evidence of a universal Genesis Deluge that has happened on earth in the list 10,000 years. Out of the many replies all but one said they have NOT FOUND ANY EVIDENCE. The one that said YES he thought there was one and it happened at the Black Sea but he was not sure. I have a book called ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE LAND OF THE BIBLE FROM 10,000 DOWN TO 586 BCE, by one of the top archaeologist from Israel, and he lists all the people who have been living in Palistine staring from 12,000 years years ago to 586 BCE and there is not ONE reference to a Genesis Deluge in his book or a creation of about 5000 BCE.
As to all the flood stories from around the world who says they refer to the biblical deluge story. There is a difference between a flood story and a world wide Deluge story. Out of all those flood stories only three are like a deluge story and two of these were written up to 1000 years before the biblical deluge story and according to over 300 archaeoligest none of these 4 stories are true. So it sure looks like your Adam/Eve story is just a myth when you have no foundation for it. It is nice to know that you build your history on myths. arlan b.

That's what I've been saying.....

 

[leahrachelle]

Very, very true.
Thus another flaw in most Christian religions. Thank you for bringing that up.

 

[leahrachelle]

The bible says that Adam/Eve came right after creation and most young Creationist say that happened about 6000 years ago and that the biblical deluge happened about 4500 years ago. The problem is that according to archaeology the biblical deluge never happend 4500 years ago and neither did creation and Adam /Eve happened 6000 years ago. Two lagged people have been walking this earth for at least 50,000 or more years, they lived and died {because of sin???] like we do today. There are cities today that have had people living in them continusually for 5,000 to 7,000 years into their past. How do young creationist explain that problem?

It is a metaphor. Like tons of other things in the bible - the Adam and Eve story itself for example.
You should know a little better than that. The people who wrote the bible were smart enough to realize, for example, how big an ark that fit two of every animal would be. They predicted things that would happen, they got almost a billion people in these part two thousand years to believe them. It is obviously a metaphor for that reason alone.

 

[Arlanbb]

MUFFLED ~ where did you go? A month a go I asked which archaeologist belived that Adam and Eve were created about 5000BCE? Would you name a few?? arlan