No Adam = no Original Sin - right?

[uss_bigd]

hehehehehe .... There you go....

 

[gnostic]

Perhaps, the original sin began with god.

In his pride God thought he had control over human fragility, and think that he can command obedience through simple commandment. Sins for placing the Tree of Knowledge of good and bad in the Garden in the 1st place, knowing what could take place.

Pride and oversight.

It really depends on the situation and how you look at it.

I don't think Eve did anything wrong.

She didn't know from right and wrong, so she could easily dup into disobedience, because she couldn't tell if the serpent is lying or not, without knowing right from wrong.

Beside all that. My recent theory is that the serpent was not Satan, but God, either posing as a talking serpent, or possessing the serpent, or using the serpent as his agent to test them.

 

[uss_bigd]

Perhaps, the original sin began with god.

In his pride God thought he had control over human fragility, and think that he can command obedience through simple commandment. Sins for placing the Tree of Knowledge of good and bad in the Garden in the 1st place, knowing what could take place.

Pride and oversight.

It really depends on the situation and how you look at it.

I don't think Eve did anything wrong.

She didn't know from right and wrong, so she could easily dup into disobedience, because she couldn't tell if the serpent is lying or not, without knowing right from wrong.

Beside all that. My recent theory is that the serpent was not Satan, but God, either posing as a talking serpent, or possessing the serpent, or using the serpent as his agent to test them.

Pure ignorance of bible truth sir.... :sorry1:

 

[gnostic]

It is matter of different opinion and interpretation than anything else.

I don't think is ignorance.

How do you expect Eve to know the truth of whether the serpent or God is telling the truth or lie, if she can't distinguish between right and wrong, good and bad, etc, if she has not eaten the fruit yet?

You can't. And the way the story is told, it is illogical.

Beside all this, I don't think Adam and Eve were meant to live forever in the Garden of Eden. And they can't possibly survive out in the world, if they can't make the distinction. As the population grows, they will eventually have to leave the confine of the Paradise, and looked for their own food. If they remain in Paradise, then they will eventually run out of food, and they will not know how to toil on the farm to grow their own food.

Do you seriously think that God wanted them to remain ignorant?

The only ignorance here is yours. Do you forget God telling Adam and his descendants must toil for his own food? You can't go out in the world, populate the earth, and not expect to farm. You are also forgetting that if Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit, and they and their descendants ate from the Tree of Life, no one would die, but again, they would still starve and suffer because no one know to grow their own food.

Do seriously God would provide endless supply of food? Do you want God to always send quails and manna like in the Exodus? I'd hardly think so.

 

[uss_bigd]

It is matter of different opinion and interpretation than anything else.

I don't think is ignorance.

How do you expect Eve to know the truth of whether the serpent or God is telling the truth or lie, if she can't distinguish between right and wrong, good and bad, etc, if she has not eaten the fruit yet?

You can't. And the way the story is told, it is illogical.

Beside all this, I don't think Adam and Eve were meant to live forever in the Garden of Eden. And they can't possibly survive out in the world, if they can't make the distinction. As the population grows, they will eventually have to leave the confine of the Paradise, and looked for their own food. If they remain in Paradise, then they will eventually run out of food, and they will not know how to toil on the farm to grow their own food.

Do you seriously think that God wanted them to remain ignorant?

The only ignorance here is yours. Do you forget God telling Adam and his descendants must toil for his own food? You can't go out in the world, populate the earth, and not expect to farm. You are also forgetting that if Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit, and they and their descendants ate from the Tree of Life, no one would die, but again, they would still starve and suffer because no one know to grow their own food.

Do seriously God would provide endless supply of food? Do you want God to always send quails and manna like in the Exodus? I'd hardly think so.

You are comparing you limited thoughts to God's thoughts. that si why God said " your thoughts are not my thoughts and your walk is not my walk"

 

[gnostic]

To me, the creation, Adam and Eve, God and the talking serpent are all myth, to explain the following:

• ...why we are mortal?
• ...why we need to work and grow our own food?
• ...why we have free will?
• ...why women suffer from childbirth?
• ...why snakes have no legs?

Do you seriously believe that serpent can talk? Because it is a fable.

Even some devout Christians don't believe the 1st eleven chapters to be literal history, and that the 1st 3-4 chapters are metaphors or allegory. It is explanation of what they don't understand, and therefore, the ancient Hebrews/Israelites were no different from other cultures or civilisations in myth-making.

None of them exist, except as a myth, fable, allegory or whatever you want to call them.

Do you know the purpose of mythology? If not, then look it up.

ps. As usual, you've failed to answer my questions. I have answer your questions, so out of courtesy you really should answer mine. Otherwise there is no discussion nor debate.

 

[idea]

Now that it's widely accepted that the story of Adam is not a literal representation of reality, the concept of original sin falls apart, it would seem.

The concept of original sin falls apart reguardless of Adam...

Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezek 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

original sin is all about infant baptism vs. believers baptism. In the dark ages, the combined church/state used infant baptisms to take census and collect taxes. People would avoid paying taxes by not getting their children baptized - so they altered the Bible, introduced the "original sin" concept to get everyone to baptize their babies… teaching people that children would go to hell is one of the more perverse alterations that was made in the scriptures…

example edit
Matt 19
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them saying, There is no need, for Jesus hath said, Such shall be saved.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

Jesus then takes the children and blesses, not baptizes them, because they did not need to be baptized.

and not just children - God is just, we are only held accountable to act on what we know...
Luke 12:
47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and cprepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

This life is not the only place where we can learn of God...
John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

To me, the creation, Adam and Eve, God and the talking serpent are all myth, to explain the following:

• ...why we are mortal?
• ...why we need to work and grow our own food?
• ...why we have free will?
• ...why women suffer from childbirth?
• ...why snakes have no legs?

I don't know if you are interested, but here is what answered the questions for me...
link

Artticle on Adam and Eve link

 

[emiliano]

Christians don't hold that creation is part of God. That's panentheism. Christians hold that creation is utterly separate from God, although God permeates all of it.

Whether Adam "copied" the devil's sin or not, it's still correct to call it "original sin." The term "original sin" means only that human sins has their origin in human nature, which is sinful or prone to sin.

This concept stands whether Adam was a literal person or not.

It is just that if before God there was nothing, then whatever came to be must be part of Him or He is not really the alpha, telling me that is known as pantheism doesn’t answer the question or dismiss the argument.
There is a problem with the term used Original that your replay your replay does not answer either

 

[gnostic]

Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezek 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

There is an important verse that clash and contradict these two verses you have quoted, idea. Exodus 20:5, about not worshipping idols:

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

It state quite clearly that he would punish the children, right up to the 4th generation for the sin of the father.

 

[emiliano]

Perhaps, the original sin began with god.

Impossible, all that God create is Good, Adam was created very good

In his pride God thought he had control over human fragility, and think that he can command obedience through simple commandment. Sins for placing the Tree of Knowledge of good and bad in the Garden in the 1st place, knowing what could take place.

Off the mark again God created humanity with free Will, and not as a mindless puppet.

I don't think Eve did anything wrong.
She didn't know from right and wrong, so she could easily dup into disobedience, because she couldn't tell if the serpent is lying or not, without knowing right from wrong.

She didn’t have to know that, she was told of the consequences “you will surely die”

Beside all that. My recent theory is that the serpent was not Satan, but God, either posing as a talking serpent, or possessing the serpent, or using the serpent as his agent to test them.

I don’t think that there will much interest in your theory here.

 

[idea]

It is just that if before God there was nothing, then whatever came to be must be part of Him or He is not really the alpha, telling me that is known as pantheism doesn’t answer the question or dismiss the argument.
There is a problem with the term used Original that your replay your replay does not answer either

The point is there was never a time when God was surrounded by nothingness. He is the Alpha because He was the greatest of the intelligences.

is "original sin" in the scriptures? The closest I could find was not in the Bible...

Moses 6:54 Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the cchildren, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.

"original sin" - problem with both terms, it was not "original" nor was it a sin - Adam and Eve transgressed when they ate the fruit, they did not sin. In order to sin you have to fully understand what you are doing - children do not sin as an example, they are innocent through ignorance - the same through Adam and Eve. Read the creation part of the article link.

as far as Ex 20:5
5 Thou shalt not abow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a bjealous God, cvisiting the diniquity of the efathers upon the fchildren unto the third and fourth generation of them that ghate me;
5 a Ex. 23:24; Mosiah 13:13; Alma 31:1
b HEB qannah, "possessing sensitive and deep feelings."; Ex. 34:14; Num. 25:11; Deut. 4:24; Deut. 6:15; Josh. 24:19; Mosiah 11:22
c TG Justice
d Ps. 109:14; Mosiah 13:13; TG Sin
e TG Marriage, Fatherhood
f IE insofar as the children learn and do the sinful things the parents do; but see v. 6 concerning those who repent and serve the LORD.; D&C 98:47 (46–47)

 

[gnostic]

I don’t think that there will much interest in your theory here.

That's probably because I had already created a topic Is the "serpent" God? about a couple of months ago.

 

[emiliano]

The point is there was never a time when God was surrounded by nothingness. He is the Alpha because He was the greatest of the intelligences.

No, Alpha is the first letter and it means that there is no other before it. How do you get “He was the greatest of the intelligences” Does this means that the were others?
Scripture also states the He is the beginning and the end, the first and the last

 

[Dunemeister]

It is just that if before God there was nothing, then whatever came to be must be part of Him or He is not really the alpha, telling me that is known as pantheism doesn’t answer the question or dismiss the argument.
There is a problem with the term used Original that your replay your replay does not answer either

Why can't God create something that is separate from him? Why must whatever God creates be a part of him?

My point about "original" was to establish the meaning of the term. The origin of sin is our human nature and our natural tendency to rebel against our duties, role, station, whatever. That idea is entirely biblical. If you use the word "original" differently, then it becomes unbiblical.

And the point of the thread, of course, is whether the concept of original sin (and by that we must mean what the church has traditionally taught, otherwise we have no grounding for the question) requires a literal Adam. I've argued that it does not. The idea that sin is somehow inherent in human nature does not require a literal Adam. Historically, it's entirely possible that human beings evolved from ape-like ancestors, and that at whatever point homo sapiens sapiens developed, those same homo sapiens sapiens were tainted by sin and had this deplorable tendency to deviate from their divine calling.

 

[emiliano]

Just remember that the account allegorical as it may be, says that Humanity/Adam was created in the image of God? This present a problem to “Why can't God create something that is separate from him?”

 

[gnostic]

For the OP:

No Adam = no Original Sin - right?

Now that it's widely accepted that the story of Adam is not a literal representation of reality, the concept of original sin falls apart, it would seem.

I would say if there were no Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad in the Garden of Eden, then there would be no original sin.

But then again I don't believe in the Original Sin....in fact, I don't believe in the existence Tree of Knowledge....or that of talking serpent... or that of Adam and Eve...or that of God, creating the man or world...

It is all myths. Nothing proven, nothing gains.

 

[Dunemeister]

Just remember that the account allegorical as it may be, says that Humanity/Adam was created in the image of God? This present a problem to “Why can't God create something that is separate from him?”

Why? We are God's IMAGE, we are not God. If I make a statue of Zeus, the statue is what it is, but it's not Zeus. Why is this such a difficult idea for some?

 

[Dunemeister]

For the OP:

I would say if there were no Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad in the Garden of Eden, then there would be no original sin.

If Adam can be allegorical, so can the trees in the story, and STILL the concept of original sin can be true. Why not?

 

[gnostic]

If Adam can be allegorical, so can the trees in the story, and STILL the concept of original sin can be true. Why not?

In what can it be true? If the others are fictional, then there is no ground for the original sin in the same story.

 

[Muffled]

Now that it's widely accepted that the story of Adam is not a literal representation of reality, the concept of original sin falls apart, it would seem.

I could care less how many people do not believe that God spoke literally; I will continue to believe that He did.

The concept stays intact. I am sure sinners would like to ignore it but all that means is that they will continue to die. It is like ignoring the fact that you have cancer because you think doctors are making it up to make money. In the end you will die if you don't seek someone to save you from it.