Original Sin

[Thief]

Sure it does. The genesis myth is at odd to what we know scientifically. We have no testable evidence of an Adam and Eve. Most theologians and scholars regard the story as allegory. We know our Earth is a very, very old Earth, all life is related on a molecular level and humans are primates (related on a genetic level ancestrally)

Wrong on both. Not only are we still animals but we know that about 6myo we split from our common ancestor.

If that is the case then you agree that humans are both male and female...correct?

Biblically yes...but in reality the change took millions of years and so far the evidence sides with science......

You can't replace faith with science.
You can bolster faith with science.

At this point I think you're making assumptions of what I believe.

How about Adam as a chosen son of God.
The first to walk with Him.

Eve is a clone. She had no navel.

Adam was given his twin sister for a bride.

Science doesn't conflict with my belief.
I suspect your assumption.... I can't have both.

 

[riley2112]

Wrong on both. Not only are we still animals but we know that about 6myo we split from our common ancestor.

could you please provide the evidence that you used to form your opinion on this. Thank you .

 

[fishy]

people are sinful through being humans - all to do with the ego.

Everyone's ego needs massaging - one of the ways in which we survive - however for most people the best massage comes from trampling on someone else's , I guess it makes us feel good.

this condition was inserted into the human DNA system by Satan around the time of Adam and Eve.

Satan can alter DNA, how long has this been happening? Can you now blame Satan for Spina Bifida or Haemophilia or all other genetic diseases?

 

[godnotgod]

Here is something that bugs me and I would like to discuss. It seems that Christianity (perhaps other religions also, I am unsure) teaches that we are born with "original sin", which is inherited because of Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden. WE are held responsible for the sins of SOMEONE ELSE. I cannot see how this belief makes sense.

First, if god is loving and forgiving, why would he hold an everlasting grudge against humans? If it is so that we must accept Christ, it seems kind of like a set up...

Second, why should we even be held responsible for the sins of another in general? Nobody is responsible for the sins of another in any other case outside of this one. Why is this one held against all of humanity? Again, it seems like a set up.

Discuss

The assumption is that there was a 'sin' to begin with.

Come on now, people. Use your noggins:

God deliberately (and with malice aforethought, I say) places a very succulent and tempting, but extremely dangerous (fatal ,actually) fruit tree right in the very path of his beloved children, and then has the audacity to forbid it's eating as some sort of sick 'test' of their fidelity. Come now. Is that really the true nature of the Divine Office?

NO! ...and you all KNOW that, somehow, don't you?

The truth is, folks, that God, by doing so, actually WANTS his children to eat of this Fruit, as it is his gift to them of Divine Union, "for God so loved the world", as you may recall.

And to insure that they partake of this lovely and precious gift, after expressly forbidding it's eating, he then re-appears to them as a cute little serpent.

Adam and Eve did'nt stand a snowflake's chance in hell, and God knew it!

Alas, there was no Original Sin that was indelibly passed on from generation to generation. That is all poppycock. I even had one Christian wanna-be preacher try to tell me it was genetically passed on. Imagine that: we all have an Original Sin gene, lurking somewhere between the loci of our chromosomes. Why, that little devil!

(Could the DNA code be something like: 66606660666066606660666? don't answer that, puhleaze! LOL) hmmmm....or maybe it's: xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxgotchahahaha)

Unbelievable, is'nt it? That someone actually wants to give you something with no strings attached. In fact, if you look really, really carefully, you will discover that the gift was yours all along, even before you were born, without the need for bloody crucifixions and all the rest of that nonsense. :angel2:

 

[godnotgod]

The Bible does not say we are responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve or anyone else. It says that because we are human we inherit the sin nature or propensity to sin. Everyone expresses in one way or another their sinful nature and commits their own sins.There is a big difference.

Now please be very careful with the words you are using. If sin is part of man's nature, then man cannot be who he is without it. It is part of cat nature to meow, and behave in a particular cat manner. That is its nature. Without these virtues, a cat is not a cat. You are saying that sin and the propensity to sin is what man is about. If that is the case, then sin cannot be removed from man, just as those virtues that make up what a cat is cannot be removed.

Tell me, please, exactly at what point did man 'inherit' this so-called 'sin nature'? And if it were so inherited, then what was man's nature prior to this event?

Careful how you answer.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You can't replace faith with science.

Sure you can. I never had it. I was born an Atheist. I didn't replace one for the other.

At this point I think you're making assumptions of what I believe.

If I were I wouldn't have ask questions.

How about Adam as a chosen son of God.
The first to walk with Him.

According to you. I don't remember reading your scripture where it said Adam walked with "God". And as I have said already...we know the biblical Adam was not the first homosapien...rather we have evolved. Additionally, many theologians and scholars consider the story of Adam and Eve not to be a literal story and more of an allegory. If the story is an allegory then there was no physical Adam and Eve to sin. If the bible and literalist contend they did exist and responsible for the existence of humanity then they're view is at odds with empirical evidence that says they weren't.

(my emphasis because I'm trying to show that I'm still on topic)

Eve is a clone. She had no navel.

Adam was given his twin sister for a bride.

It takes 23 pairs of chromosomes from mother and from father to produce one human male/female. If you only have male DNA how can you clone that male and make it female? If you believe that it was possible then do you believe humans are both male and female?

Science doesn't conflict with my belief.
I suspect your assumption.... I can't have both.

It does if you think there was a literal Adam and Eve who were responsible for the existence of all humanity within the time frame your bible describes. As far as "assumption"...actually I not assuming anything which is why I asked.

 

[Thief]

Sure you can. I never had it. I was born an Atheist. I didn't replace one for the other.



If I were I wouldn't have ask questions.



According to you. I don't remember reading your scripture where it said Adam walked with "God". And as I have said already...we know the biblical Adam was not the first homosapien...rather we have evolved. Additionally, many theologians and scholars consider the story of Adam and Eve not to be a literal story and more of an allegory. If the story is an allegory then there was no physical Adam and Eve to sin. If the bible and literalist contend they did exist and responsible for the existence of humanity then they're view is at odds with empirical evidence that says they weren't.

(my emphasis because I'm trying to show that I'm still on topic)



It takes 23 pairs of chromosomes from mother and from father to produce one human male/female. If you only have male DNA how can you clone that male and make it female? If you believe that it was possible then do you believe humans are both male and female?



It does if you think there was a literal Adam and Eve who were responsible for the existence of all humanity within the time frame your bible describes. As far as "assumption"...actually I not assuming anything which is why I asked.

As this is more to theology than science....shall we use theology.

As such...Man was created on day Six....
no garden, no names, no restrictions....go forth be fruitful and multiply.

As an animal....Man did so.

Chapter Two is a story of manipulation...not creation.
A specimen is chosen....isolated....cloned....and turned loose.
The garden had served it's purpose.

Perhaps you can see science in Chapter Two?

If you can....fine....
If not...too bad.

Original sin?
Man was made to learn this life and move on to the next.
Acquisition of knowledge is essential.

Before release out of the garden....an experiment...
Some indication that the spirit of Man would seek a mindful life....
even if it meant dying.

Still confused?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

could you please provide the evidence that you used to form your opinion on this. Thank you .

Part Of the Animal Kingdom
What part of the animal kingdom do humans belong to

Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When we split 4 to 7 myo
Scientists narrow time limits for human, chimp split

A Recent Split of Humans and Chimps? - ScienceNOW

Note: the first article is more conservative at 6myo but some newer research yields a 4.1myo estimate. As with all science the research continues to shed new light on our lineage. The genetics are still the determining fact that shows our relation to non-human primates.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

As this is more to theology than science....shall we use theology.

As such...Man was created on day Six....
no garden, no names, no restrictions....go forth be fruitful and multiply.

As an animal....Man did so.

Chapter Two is a story of manipulation...not creation.
A specimen is chosen....isolated....cloned....and turned loose.
The garden had served it's purpose.

Perhaps you can see science in Chapter Two?

If you can....fine....
If not...too bad.

Original sin?
Man was made to learn this life and move on to the next.
Acquisition of knowledge is essential.

Before release out of the garden....an experiment...
Some indication that the spirit of Man would seek a mindful life....
even if it meant dying.

Still confused?

And all of this is if you're taking the story as a literal story which is why many theologians and scholars don't and none of what you describe above squares with science. If you clone a human male tell me how can you get a human female...(unless the male is both male and female). Do you believe Adam was both male and female in order for "God" to take the rib (bone marrow - DNA) to make a woman?

 

[Thief]

And all of this is if you're taking the story as a literal story which is why many theologians and scholars don't and none of what you describe above squares with science. If you clone a human male tell me how can you get a human female...(unless the male is both male and female). Do you believe Adam was both male and female in order for "God" to take the rib (bone marrow - DNA) to make a woman?

The text of Genesis is a mix of literal and metaphorical ideas.

God and Man have never met?...so much for ALL faith.

God and Man have met?...someone had to be first.
That would be Adam.
He really did exist.

What I find remarkable about the Chapter Two...
It describes a manipulation that could only be done with high tech.

Picture yourself sitting around a fire, and an old man of eighty years is telling this story about someone having his rib cut out, and a woman made of it.

Being rendered unresponsive is one thing. A serious blow to the head can leave a man completely oblivious, not matter the stimulus. Even ancient man may have seen such an event.
If he recovers, that would still be a serious injury.

But to claim a rib was cut out of the man as he slept?
No matter the sleep...such injury would be fatal...without anesthesia and care.

The rib then increased to full human form, and that form a woman?
The story is several thousand years old, and only in recent decades can we see the possibility of cloning and genetic manipulation.

I don't believe Adam to be the first of human kind.
He was the first to walk with God.

Eve...apparently...was made to make sure the alterations performed in the garden would not regress.
As a clone, she would have no mother...no navel.

Original sin?...did you post what you think it might be?

 

[riley2112]

Part Of the Animal Kingdom
What part of the animal kingdom do humans belong to

Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When we split 4 to 7 myo
Scientists narrow time limits for human, chimp split

A Recent Split of Humans and Chimps? - ScienceNOW

Note: the first article is more conservative at 6myo but some newer research yields a 4.1myo estimate. As with all science the research continues to shed new light on our lineage. The genetics are still the determining fact that shows our relation to non-human primates.

thank you for getting back to me , I will look at the link and see if I can learn any thing.

 

[godlikemadman]

"Satan has entered into human DNA"

lolwut

 

[godnotgod]

"Satan has entered into human DNA"

lolwut

Maybe it's more like the deluded human mind projects him as a personification of Extreme Polarized Malevolence, just as Jesus is projected as the personification of Extreme Polarized Goodness. In psychological circles, we call these mental states Shadow and Persona.

"It's all true...
it's all YOU"

 

[fishy]

Maybe it's more like the deluded human mind projects him as a personification of Extreme Polarized Malevolence, just as Jesus is projected as the personification of Extreme Polarized Goodness. In psychological circles, we call these mental states Shadow and Persona.

"It's all true...
it's all YOU"

Can you claim to know a reason for these extremes?

 

[godnotgod]

Can you claim to know a reason for these extremes?

Fear, due to ignorance. We imagine some malevolent entity stalking the world with the express intent of snatching our souls from us, and another entity of supreme goodness and light to protect and save us from such 'evil'. We are thrust into a dangerous world we do not understand the nature or origin of, nor do we understand where we came from, why we are here, or where we are going after death. All of this adds up to a condition known as 'metaphysical anxiety', which causes us to seek comfort, protection, and salvation in some projected idol-image, patterned after our own, but with powers we also imagine beyond our own. It's called 'Apparent Love of Others by Projection of the Ego', in this case, Idolatrous Love:

I. APPARENT LOVE OF OTHERS BY PROJECTION OF THE EGO

This is Idolatrous Love, in which the ego is projected onto another being [eg.; "Jesus"]. The pretension to divinity as "distinct" has left my organism and is now fixed on the organism of the other. The affective situation is one in which the other has taken my place in my scale of values. I desire the existence of the other-idol, against everything that is opposed to him. I no longer love my own organism except insofar as it is the faithful servant of the idol; apart from that I have no further sentiments towards my organism, I am indifferent to it, and, if necessary, I can give my life for the safety of my idol (I can sacrifice my organism to my Ego fixed on the idol; like Empedocles throwing himself down the crater of Etna in order to immortalize his Ego). As for the rest of the world, I hate it if it is hostile to my idol; if it is not hostile and if my contemplation of the idol fills me with joy (that is to say, with egotistical affirmation), I love indiscriminately all the rest of the world. If the idolized being rejects me to the point of forbidding me all possession of my Ego in him, the apparent love can be turned to hate.

from ’Zen and the Psychology of Transformation: The Supreme Doctrine’, by Hubert Benoit; Pantheon Books, ISBN 0-89281-272-9

....and it's all because we fail to gain a true understanding of our own human nature. We allow fear, superstition, and wrong views to disempower us and imprison our minds, when it is we who are holding the key to our own freedom all along.

 

[Prophet]

Fear, due to ignorance. We imagine some malevolent entity stalking the world with the express intent of snatching our souls from us, and another entity of supreme goodness and light to protect and save us from such 'evil'. We are thrust into a dangerous world we do not understand the nature or origin of, nor do we understand where we came from, why we are here, or where we are going after death. All of this adds up to a condition known as 'metaphysical anxiety', which causes us to seek comfort, protection, and salvation in some projected idol-image, patterned after our own, but with powers we also imagine beyond our own. It's called 'Apparent Love of Others by Projection of the Ego', in this case, Idolatrous Love:

I. APPARENT LOVE OF OTHERS BY PROJECTION OF THE EGO

This is Idolatrous Love, in which the ego is projected onto another being [eg.; "Jesus"]. The pretension to divinity as "distinct" has left my organism and is now fixed on the organism of the other. The affective situation is one in which the other has taken my place in my scale of values. I desire the existence of the other-idol, against everything that is opposed to him. I no longer love my own organism except insofar as it is the faithful servant of the idol; apart from that I have no further sentiments towards my organism, I am indifferent to it, and, if necessary, I can give my life for the safety of my idol (I can sacrifice my organism to my Ego fixed on the idol; like Empedocles throwing himself down the crater of Etna in order to immortalize his Ego). As for the rest of the world, I hate it if it is hostile to my idol; if it is not hostile and if my contemplation of the idol fills me with joy (that is to say, with egotistical affirmation), I love indiscriminately all the rest of the world. If the idolized being rejects me to the point of forbidding me all possession of my Ego in him, the apparent love can be turned to hate.

from ’Zen and the Psychology of Transformation: The Supreme Doctrine’, by Hubert Benoit; Pantheon Books, ISBN 0-89281-272-9

....and it's all because we fail to gain a true understanding of our own human nature. We allow fear, superstition, and wrong views to disempower us and imprison our minds, when it is we who are holding the key to our own freedom all along.

I think I agree with you. Jesus spoke of this apparent love of others by projection of the ego. He called it hypocrisy from the Greek word for actor. Beings act as if they are selfless, but their actual motives are selfish.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I don't know who got this idea into their heads that we are "born" guilty with this so called "original sin" but IMO it is all pure bunk.

 

[Thief]

I don't know who got this idea into their heads that we are "born" guilty with this so called "original sin" but IMO it is all pure bunk.

I agree.

It probably has something to do with that... 'don't eat the apple'... routine.

 

[godnotgod]

I agree.

It probably has something to do with that... 'don't eat the apple'... routine.

Somewhere in the distant and foggy past, the original story of the 'Forbidden Fruit' became twisted by the priests into one by which they were able to control their congregations via fear.

 

[rusra02]

I don't know who got this idea into their heads that we are "born" guilty with this so called "original sin" but IMO it is all pure bunk.

And yet we all do sin, and we all do die...(Romans 5:12)