Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
It also often rains. Saying so in a book is not particularly insightful or magical.
-
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!
Original Sin
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
I have a vague feeling that it may have been me that posted this comment many pages ago in the thread.
anyway, it makes sense to me.
When Adam ate the apple it gave Satan the chance he needed to infuse into human DNA and the rest is history.
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
*".. and the rest is mythstory." 
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
I agree but how did you determine that Adam and Eve were literally real people vs. those they say they weren't and that the story itself is allegorical?
First to what....meet "God"?
How do you know or are you basing this on faith?
Cloning is not in question. What is in question is taking of male DNA to make a woman. How is this possible? Do you believe man is both male and female? You keep avoiding this question.
Only if you believe man is both male and female....Correct..?
I think there is no such thing. And as there is no such thing as "original sin then it rules out the concept of sin itself. These are both man made terms in order to keep people in control......:sad:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Assuming for the moment that Original Sin is a reality, what that means is that God placed a very tantalizing Fruit Tree that was also extremely dangerous (actually fatal) directly in the paths of his innocent children, and then forbade them, under penalty of death, to eat of it.
That is akin to having a voluptuous female tantalizingly dance naked in front of your teenager, hormones raging, and instructing him NOT to have sex with her.
If anyone is guilty of Original Sin, it is God himself, for deliberately and knowingly placing dangerous goods where his children could not resist them. This was the first Sting Operation.
Original Sin is not the problem; Desire is.
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
There has been interaction between God and Man...otherwise....
All prophets are false and all religion is false.
Are you willing to go that far?
And this thread is not about cloning....is it not you pursuing genetics?
I do suspect manipulation.... as covered in Genesis.
And of course someone had to be first....when walking with God.
That would be Adam.
Faith in God first....then Adam....because someone had to be first.
Original sin...is the topic.
I would agree with you, the concept has been used by 'the people in charge', to further their own agendas and teachings as per congregational followings.
The resolve is as I posted...(many places in this forum)
God placed a choice...Man chose...
and that choosing indicates that Man is such a creature that will pursue knowledge...in spite of pending consequence...in spite of death.
However, the topic is persistent as most believers insist...something went wrong in the garden.
So I gave up congregation....'rogue theologian'.
I did not surrender my belief in God.
And someone had to be first to walk with Him.
Nothing went wrong in the garden.
All manipulations are as they should be.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Exactly. It appears they were setup to fail...if we "assume" the story has any validity. Additionally how would Adam and Even know that it was wrong or sinful considering they really didn't have any such knowledge of good and evil or sin......:sad:
godnotgod
Thou art That
...and following the argument of the orthodox version of the story all the way through reveals its inherent flaws, demonstrating that taking the story literally is obviously not the true meaning of the allegory.
When we look at the story from an intuitive point of view, with God's intent that his children do eat of the Fruit, everything just falls right into place.
Buddhists refer to the orthodox scenario as 'the long way home'. While valid, it hits every bump and thorn in the road. In other words, it's unnecessary.
....which leads to the second issue of the origin of evil, in both Adam and Eve's and Satan's case. Christians often talk about men having the 'propensity to sin'. God is their creator. They had nothing to do with it. So the propensity in question had to have originated from the source. But if the propensity is what God actually wants, then there is no sin.
Morality is not an aspect of man's nature. It is a product of social indoctrination. We learn to be moral, but when coupled with a system of reward and punishment, things begin to get a bit sticky. The idea is that man is born with this propensity to sin, and must be corrected so Salvation can take place. Unfortunately, we avoid wrongdoing and do 'good' for the wrong reasons: to avoid punishment and/or to gain some reward, which has its own inherent problems. Part of the problem with with this approach (and it is a BIG one) is that we tend to push a good image of ourselves (Persona) while suppressing and hiding the negative images of ourselves (Shadow). We then project our Shadow onto whomever we can, condemning, dehumanizing, or demonizing them, while propping ourselves up as shining examples. The short term is Scapegoating, and the classic example is that of untermenschen (ie: sub-human) which Hitler successfully and systematically foisted upon the Jewish people.
Eastern wisdom teaches exactly the opposite: that man has an inherently good nature, but due to social indoctrination via religion, government, parenting, schooling, etc., it is suppressed or asleep or both, and is in need of Awakening and unfolding. Here, it is not morality that needs to be pursued, but Original Virtue, which is an aspect of our nature.
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
So at this point we all agree....?
The original sin event is not what most 'believers' think it is.
I don't believe in a setup to fail.
Partaking of the 'fruit' was intended. That Man partakes and endeavors for knowledge, even unto death, is precisely what Man should be.
If original sin is that tendency...we are all guilty.
(save those who chose to be ignorant!)
The original sin event is not what most 'believers' think it is.
I don't believe in a setup to fail.
Partaking of the 'fruit' was intended. That Man partakes and endeavors for knowledge, even unto death, is precisely what Man should be.
If original sin is that tendency...we are all guilty.
(save those who chose to be ignorant!)
Well, not quite all. Of course God did not intend for Adam and Eve to disobey his command. The tree represented God's right to decide what was good and bad. God does not withhold knowledge from man, as Satan falsely claimed to Eve. "For Jehovah himself gives wisdom; out of his mouth there are knowledge and discernment." (Proverbs 2:6) How inconsistent it would be for God to place within man a thirst for knowledge and then to deny him such, demanding that he remain ignorant. Satan is also the Devil, or Slanderer, liar. His false accusations against God should not be believed.
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
Wwwwwwwwwwwwwell, except for that whole.. Good and Evil thing.
The tree that God forbade Adam and Eve to eat from represented a privilege only God has-the right to determine what is good and what is bad. (Jeremiah 10:23) Adam and Eve already knew right from wrong, good from evil. God told them it was evil to eat from the tree. By doing so, the first couple were grasping at moral independence from God, a course that continues today by nearly all mankind.
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
Jeremiah does not maintain that the Tree was the decision to determine what was good and what was evil, it was the mere knowledge of. Deny it all you like, that's what the Bible says, clearly.
Basically what the Tree really was changes every 5 minutes around here.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
That is the essence of the everyday misconception.
To say....'partake and you will die'....is not denial.
It speaks only the action, and the coincidental consequence.
We are here to learn...then we die.
Man is a creature that will risk death in the quest for knowing.
waitasec
Veteran Member
then why was the tree forbidden?
waitasec
Veteran Member
so obviously it was not a privilege to know the difference between good and evil
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
waitasec
Veteran Member
forbidden:
forbidden [fəˈbɪdən]
adj
1. not permitted by order or law
not:
not (nt)
adv.
In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition:
permitted:
per·mit (pr-mt)
v. per·mit·ted, per·mit·ting, per·mits
v.tr.
1. To allow the doing of (something); consent to: permit the sale of alcoholic beverages.
2. To grant consent or leave to (someone); authorize: permitted him to explain.
3. To afford opportunity or possibility for
lets re-word it so as to make your question as clear as day...shall we?
to no degree was eating from the tree of knowledge to be granted, having been consented to or authorized by god for a & e to partake from.
for what purpose, reason, or cause; with what intention, justification, or motive?