Original Sin

[glyphkenn]

Explain the tree of life. I don't know , you don't know, no body knows. All of the things people come up with are just a guess at what happened. So let me make a guess , Garden, plants, trees, OK, how is this? Plants and fruit trees grow in gardens, how is that? Here is another guess. Maybe the tree of life doesn't mean anything other than it was there because that is where it grows. Maybe Eden was not the intended place for man kind to learn what he needs to learn before he can have a true relationship with God. . If God is all powerful , all knowing, then one must contend that in creating man and placing him in an environment where falling was the likely outcome, then obviously God would have had to have man’s fall as a part of His plan. But then again , that is only a guess.
As for hell makes no difference if I am right or someone else is right. What it says in the bible is that hell = grave. That is not me saying it , that is the Bible . But let me make another guess about hell. This is the horror of hell-based Christianity: it turns God, Jesus and Christian mothers into monsters willing to play eternal roulette with the souls of innocent children. Could good mothers live happily in heaven with Jesus, knowing their children were suffering forever because Jesus refused to save them, when he was able to save the thief on the cross with a nod of his head? Please keep in mind that I am not calling Jesus a petty egomaniac. It's the "Bible believing" fundamentalists who turned Jesus into a petty monster with their bizarre theology, not me. I'm a recovering fundamentalist who no longer blasphemes the name of Jesus by accusing him of saving Christians by "grace" while condemning the saints of other religions and non-religions to an "eternal hell." As I have posted previously, the Hebrew word Sheol clearly means "the grave" or "the abode of all the dead, good and bad," not "hell." The Hebrew language doesn't have a word that means "hell" (a startling omission if there really is a "hell" and an all-knowing God spoke to the men who gave us the Bible). So you tell me what I should believe, The Bible or what another man believes it to say. And if you do indeed have knowledge and understanding beyond the bias teachings that most of us had , I would love the opportunity to learn what you believe you could teach me, I am always looking for new opinions to consider. As we both know that is what they are ,OPINIONS. Most opinions are just that , however I have come upon some opinions that was well thought out. Not often , but once in awhile. I would enjoy hearing some of yours. That is if you have more than just questions.

Maybe it's all a fairy tale. Magical trees , talking serpents , come on. Really . In the words of la bible "let the simple be simple still ."

 

[Heathen Hammer]

And allow me to add,

Explain the tree of life. I don't know , you don't know, no body knows.

In this case I personally 'don't know' because irrational paradox's aren't there to be known; they're simply irrational concepts that needn't be contemplated, only dismissed as valueless.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Because the Biblical account does not present a punishment of us for the acts of another.

Actually it presents it as a punishment, it simply refrains from using the word [and some might argue, it even does use the word in some passages and references]. It does present it as punishment if you look at it outside the leader-worship of the story, and take it at face moral value. If this were a human acting and not God, you would come to the same conclusion.

There's no way to disassociate God from a magical outcome and the responsibility for it.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm certain of liberty.

The only freedom you have seems to reside within the radius of your shackles

As for this post of yours....
It bears strong resemblance to another quote......
'Better to rule in hell ....than to serve in heaven."

But then again...how does your digression speak of original sin?

What digression? Please stop with the precociousness; this entire thread is about original sin. And I have clearly stated, it's a preposterous notion wrapped in a poorly-made, contradictory tale.

 

[Mcshane22]

Giving oneself free will is literaly imposible, howeve you look at it

I mean this in allegory I do not believe in the concept of sin ;therefore the statement we gave ourselves free will to sin is for a sense of hyperbole.
I myself do not believe in free will and believe in determinism. We perceive our desires as free will but we do not know what the causation of our desires are.



"Sin cannot be conceived in a natural state, but only in a civil state, where it is decreed by common consent what is good or bad."
(Baruch Spinoza / 1632-1677 / Ethics / 1677)

 

[Thief]

The only freedom you have seems to reside within the radius of your shackles



What digression? Please stop with the precociousness; this entire thread is about original sin. And I have clearly stated, it's a preposterous notion wrapped in a poorly-made, contradictory tale.

Are you referring to the grave?
Eternal darkness is physically real.
You go in the box and the box goes in the ground.
No form of light follows anyone into the grave.

We are shackled to our forms....no exceptions.
(perhaps Edgar Cayce...how about Jesus?)

Otherwise, I assume life after death and my spirit set free.

As for original sin....
That you are not a sinner?...good for you.

In the notion it was passed on from the past....false.
That we have the same inclination and it might put you in your grave?
It's real enough.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Are you referring to the grave?

where?

Eternal darkness is physically real.
You go in the box and the box goes in the ground.
No form of light follows anyone into the grave.

unless you are cremated

We are shackled to our forms....no exceptions.
(perhaps Edgar Cayce...how about Jesus?)

I meant you are shackled, by your devotion to your tyrant. But you knew this

Otherwise, I assume life after death and my spirit set free.

As for original sin....
That you are not a sinner?...good for you.

No, Im not a sinner, actually. Not by the sin-list of my Gods. See, when the Gods show me what not to do - I don't do it. Perhaps your God can use a few pointers from them?

In the notion it was passed on from the past....false.
That we have the same inclination and it might put you in your grave?
It's real enough.

Well your dogma says it is. Your own faith is false? Exactly.

As for what puts me in the grave, that would be death.

Original Sin is false; it's merely a poorly constructed idea to try explaining why people do bad things, and why they die, and it exposes God as a bit of a bad creator, as it's written..

 

[riley2112]

Well, we still see the problem that the doctrine itself still is not fixed in the minds of those who must follow it; your ideas differ from the other posters responding, so, how am I supposed to make decisions and thence statements, on a subject that is essentially a wisp of smoke?

It seems essentially dangerous to me, that a doctrine which regards keeping your mortal soul intact and somehow pleasing to your God, isn't even really known, this far in the future of the writing of the book. In my eyes, well.. that's a huge problem.

What you say 'that's the Bible saying it', it doesn't seem to have been said to your fellows.

Any understanding I have that you might see as teaching that you'd pay any heed, has essentially already been said. "Do you want to know more?", as the Allfather would say... well, then take the points I've made and consider them. Then make your own decisions. It is my job to engage you in The Circle where we've all gathered voluntarily. Afterwards, it's up to you to meld anything said to you into your worldview. Only your own mind can come to conclusions you will hold as valid. Seek your 'eureka' moment if you desire it

- unless that was 100% facetious, in which case, /raspberry

If you even want to.

Over the past many pages I've pointed out a number of really bad implications in the Eden story when it's taken as a whole and actually dissected rationally and in an actual moral context. It's easy for someone raised with it, to simply listen to rote words and then grab at a meaning somebody, who also never went in depth with it, spouts as an inserted conclusion not supported by the tale itself. It's not easy to tear it to shreds and face the stark reality of the pieces.

Roll a d20.

Tearing it to shreds and facing the reality of what it is truly saying is what I am doing , and I am not alone in this. I have heard the story of God , the garden of Eden , Jesus, being saved, and hell from Early childhood. As many people more than likely were. So even when we read the bible most people just scan over it not really seeing what it really says. If more people would read it as a story,(yea I said story) I think they would have a better understanding of it, and really see what it says instead of what they think it said.
I will go back over your post and reflex on them. Maybe I too, will understand what you are really saying instead of what I think you are saying.
You are right about one thing, It is essentially dangerous that a doctrine which regards keeping your mortal soul intact and pleasing to your God, isn't even really known, But then it has not been completely forgotten either.

Stay Cool..

 

[Thief]

where?

unless you are cremated
I meant you are shackled, by your devotion to your tyrant. But you knew this
No, Im not a sinner, actually. Not by the sin-list of my Gods. See, when the Gods show me what not to do - I don't do it. Perhaps your God can use a few pointers from them?
Well your dogma says it is. Your own faith is false? Exactly.

As for what puts me in the grave, that would be death.

Original Sin is false; it's merely a poorly constructed idea to try explaining why people do bad things, and why they die, and it exposes God as a bit of a bad creator, as it's written..

You didn't notice....I have no dogma....no ritual.

We might agree that original sin as taught by congregation is false....
but to assume that we will stand well before the Hierarchy is too much.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You didn't notice....I have no dogma....no ritual.

We might agree that original sin as taught by congregation is false....
but to assume that *I will stand well before the Hierarchy is too much.

Bleh. You claim no dogma, but follow it by rote anyway. I think the shiny idea of being independent is what attracts you, but you're still stamped by the 'corporate' tag.

 

[Thief]

Bleh. You claim no dogma, but follow it by rote anyway. I think the shiny idea of being independent is what attracts you, but you're still stamped by the 'corporate' tag.

By that, you mean a 'robe for my shoulder'?

We leave this world naked.
If no one cares, eternity will be a long cold walk.

A 'ring for my finger'?...a sign of belonging?
But of course...belonging to nothing really is....nothing.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

A pleasure, please do!

Well, er, I am unfamiliar with the context of the book of Mormon, so I don't know who is speaking these words, and thus I can't comment on the authority [if any] these words even have on the subject.

Who is this speaking here?

I don't know if these words are supposed to be spoken during Eden or any time after, and to whom; and the voice appears very modern in its content, and not similar to the author's voice of Genesis.

As to your first comment: well, how can the two trees be an either/or? I see how you are seeing it, I think, but, if Adam and Eve were already created to live forever, the question I originally asked remains: if they are immortal the Tree of Life is superfluous. Why is it there?

They didn't need it.

[edit] Also I wanted to address:
Adam and Eve were incapable of making an informed decision.

Hm, I was hoping to learn the Mormon context..... wonder if we can still be made aware of it...

 

[Katzpur]

Hm, I was hoping to learn the Mormon context..... wonder if we can still be made aware of it...

The words were spoken by Nephi, a prophet in the Book of Mormon who lived roughly 600 B.C. He is actually speaking to his son, Jacob. The setting is somewhere in the western hemisphere (we don't know where, exactly).

 

[riley2112]

Hm, I was hoping to learn the Mormon context..... wonder if we can still be made aware of it...

lol. if you would like it to be explained to you , please feel free to contact the local Mormon church and they will be happy to come to your home and explain it . :run: come on , that is funny.

 

[Katzpur]

lol. if you would like it to be explained to you , please feel free to contact the local Mormon church and they will be happy to come to your home and explain it .

Or you can read the post just above yours.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The words were spoken by Nephi, a prophet in the Book of Mormon who lived roughly 600 B.C. He is actually speaking to his son, Jacob. The setting is somewhere in the western hemisphere (we don't know where, exactly).

Ah, thanks!

 

[Heathen Hammer]

All right, so! Let's re-look at Idea's response, based now on Katzpur's context:

The words were spoken by Nephi, a prophet in the Book of
Mormon who lived roughly 600 B.C. He is actually speaking to his son, Jacob. The setting is somewhere in the western hemisphere (we don't know where, exactly).

Mind if I jump in?

I believe that the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were placed in the garden in order to teach Adam and Eve good from evil - I am Christian, this is not from the Bible, it is from another book that I consider scripture, and I think explains part of it well:

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first–born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 2:11 - 14)

in short, without choices, there would be no free will. Without free will we would be unable to love, unable to do anything of ourselves. I suppose you could ask - why provide the choice between the two trees? why not just choose between harmless apples and oranges? I don't think God wanted our choices to be limited in that way though...

Like Adam and Eve, we are all free to choose - and not just blindly choose, but to make an informed decision after experiencing both sides of life.

Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life.
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 10:23)

Now then, we have the idea that the Tree of Knowledge, acted as a kind of balance to the Tree of Life. Essentially, Adam and Eve would have eaten of one, or the other. By choosing the Tree of knowledge they forfeited the Tree of Life.

I find that at least, this basic concept falls in line with the Genesis tale in some part.

But, from the Mormons among us here, do you really feel that, as Idea concludes, the two people in the Garden actually made an informed decision? Had they really already experienced both sides of life, first, and made a knowledgeable choice? It wouldn't really appear that they had lived overly long, before the transgression. Can you really say they tasted that part of the deal first? It's a shame but it would seem from the tale that their personal history doesn't really begin, until the Fall. Only then do they begin to live lives we can actually relate to as 'living'.

As I have argued to others, did they really know what death was, so as to contrast a coming final end, to put into perspective the value of their living, to give a flavor, a preciousness, a value to their years? As we do?

And then, how is it that they knew the other side, since they could not have eaten yet of the apple of knowledge, either?

Even through this interesting new [to me] idea of a balance brought about by the Trees, I cannot see how this morally important awareness of consequence, was present yet in them. Please explain.

 

[waitasec]

i've said this before...
if they didn't know about good and evil...
the tree of knowledge might as well have been called
the tree of knowledge of glipper and glopper to their understanding.

makes perfect sense to me

 

[Katzpur]

But, from the Mormons among us here, do you really feel that, as Idea concludes, the two people in the Garden actually made an informed decision?

Actually, I haven't read all of idea's posts on this thread. Personally, I'd say their choice was not based on an informed decision. Prior to eating the forbidden fruit, they had no knowledge of good and evil. They were unable to distinguish between the two. They knew God had told them they'd die if they ate the forbidden fruit. They knew Satan had told them they'd become as God if they ate it. My feelings are that God placed them in the position He did for a reason. He wanted them to be able to know both good and evil. Satan wasn't a glitch in His plan. He knew that Satan's promise would be enticing enough that they'd choose it over the alternative. They already had paradise... Why not go for something more? It was their relative innocence that leads me (and probably most Mormons) to conclude that they did not make a truly "informed decision."

It's a shame but it would seem from the tale that their personal history doesn't really begin, until the Fall. Only then do they begin to live lives we can actually relate to as 'living'.

I'd have to go along with that.

As I have argued to others, did they really know what death was, so as to contrast a coming final end, to put into perspective the value of their living, to give a flavor, a preciousness, a value to their years? As we do?

I don't think they did.

And then, how is it that they knew the other side, since they could not have eaten yet of the apple of knowledge, either?

They didn't. They did know God, though, and someone was promising them that they could be just like Him. Who wouldn't have gone for that?

 

[waitasec]

this story tells me something i think is substantial
god didn't want mankind to be aware of their actions and intended them to remain innocent of guilt. otherwise why not already create them with this knowledge if it was gods plan that mankind were to become culpable for their actions?