sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Wide acceptance is not proof of anything but wide acceptance.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No Adam = no Original Sin - right?
- Thread starter Soldano16
- Start date
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
True in the world. The story is not intended to be a journalistic account of creation. It's a theological account. It's contextualizing us. Thus the story is telling us that sin entered the world as a result of human action, rebellion against the Creator. The story in Genesis is not a journalistic account of this, it's poetical narrative theological form.
Imagine that you want to tell your son something important about life, something of ultimate importance. What better way could you employ than a memorable poetic story that embeds the meaning? The ethical point you're making is still true regardless of the falsity of the story.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
The Apostles didn't seem to have any trouble with the Adam story.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Now, there is quite the conjecture. Is this revelation found in 1st Opinions?
Booko
Deviled Hen
Nice thought, but not even remotely historical.
Look up Bishop Iraneus and Augustine of Hippo sometime.
As for original sin, I was hoping someone who was a member of the Orthodox Christian Church would pop into this thread, but they don't do original sin and never have.
It's a strictly Western Church concept.
Oh yes, except Restoration Churches don't do original sin either.
Hm...looks like that whole original sin thing is not exactly the core Christian concept some would imagine.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Booko
Deviled Hen
Yeah, I was not being very exact there.
But 99.44% of the time when I read someone referring to "original sin" they're talking about St. Augustine's idea of it, not the idea that we are born into a fallen world or being implicated.
I haven't seen you around in forever, Scott. I hope you've been well and it's great to see you online again!
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Why thank you!
Even Roman Catholics don't follow Augustine's teachings on original sin any more!
I believe the term "original sin" is the problem with most of this.... so let me explain it as I understand it:
For non-Christians: The term means we will die.
For Christians: The term means we all sin and we will die.... so we ALL need Christ to redeem us.
See? Easy.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
logician
Well-Known Member
Why thank you!
Even Roman Catholics don't follow Augustine's teachings on original sin any more!
I believe the term "original sin" is the problem with most of this.... so let me explain it as I understand it:
For non-Christians: The term means we will die.
For Christians: The term means we all sin and we will die.... so we ALL need Christ to redeem us.
See? Easy.
So is the implication here that only redeemed Christians go to some heaven?
zoe and vic
Member
Sin is anything outside of the character of God.
The original sin is two-fold: not trusting God, and disobedience. God swung the next move into play: He drove Adam and Eve out of the garden. We are being driven away from Eden, as a consequence of being born of a woman- through the male seed- as a human.
Eve was deceived, but Adam was the leader in the garden. He gave His authority away by pointing the finger away from himself and not taking the blame, this God would not do, hence: sin. Jesus came to correct that problem. Any one who believes in him will be drawn back into Eden and live abundantly life now and in the next life.
Lack of trust and disobedient= not characteristic of God---> driven away.
Trust in God and obedient unto death= Jesus Christ---> drawn back in.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Logically, no.
pray4me
Active Member
It doesn't say Adam was the leader in the garden. It said Eve was created to be his companion and it seemed to indicate that him becoming the leader was her punishment:
"Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Genesis 3:16 This was only after having eaten the fruit and it was included with her pain in childbearing being greatly increased.
zoe and vic
Member
A "help meet" (KJV,) or helper (NIV) probably would not be considered the leader.
"But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
For non-Christians: The term means we will die.
For Christians: The term means we all sin and we will die.... so we ALL need Christ to redeem us.
See? Easy.
To redeem for what, entry to heaven, if so, you are saying that only Christians can go to heaven, if not, what is redemption needed for?
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Good point. In the beginning, there was no heirarchical (sp?) relationship. Patriarchy is a result of the fall. It's part of the curse that God is redeeming and will redeem.
zoe and vic
Member
This "patriarchy" began immediately with the her bite of the apple. You see the punishment for sin began at the inception. Notice the effects of sin before a knowledge of sin:
"Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden."
Sin is the by product of the condition of thought and behavior contrary to the character of God.
Adam as the primary laborer who tended the garden, and named the animals was responsible for their care. Then God created him a help meet: help, succour (assistance) and she was not less than He in stature. She was however made for him (not implying ownership.)
Therefore when she bit the apple, he, in that brief period before biting himself, as the primary laborer, not the assistant, could have sanctified his unbelieving wife.
"For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man... Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."
"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."
Hence, the unclean children of Adam.
zoe and vic
Member
Do you deem a woman desiring her husband a punishment.
pray4me
Active Member
No, I think "Your desire shall be to your husband" meant that she would be the giver of the relationship she would desire to please him. Many women are still givers they do for everyone else and do not think of themselves. It does not say sexual desire and the following phrase "he shall rule over you" intimates that the desire would be the desire to please or to serve.