Original Sin

[Thief]

when one assumes...there are no rules....

That's not true.

See your topic about 'critical thinking'.

Assumption is a cognitive tool.
Properly used it furthers a discussion that would halt....
someone not willing to see.

 

[waitasec]

That's not true.

See your topic about 'critical thinking'.

Assumption is a cognitive tool.
Properly used it furthers a discussion that would halt....
someone not willing to see.

assumptions based on evidence is a cognitive tool
not assumptions based on no evidence
and in this case the assumption is based on the evidence of a literal interpretation of the fall narrative.
as the tree of knowledge of good and evil were forbidden therefore, a state of ignorance of the moral consequences of ones actions was what the god character in this story wanted ensure... hence the forbidden fruit.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

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

Firstly I don't believe that Adam and Eve has any place in history in the first place so that makes any concept of "original sin" on that basis null and void. To me the myth of the Garden of Eden is not too different from other mythologies such as the myth of Pandora's Box where she also is said to have disobeyed the directions of a deity by opening the jar and releasing the evils of the world. This is a means of reconciling with a less than perfect world with so called perfect deities. Many ancient cultures explained this less than perfect world as a consequence of some act of disobedience with an early mythical ancestor(s).

 

[Bird123]

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

Stories like Adam and Eve are fun to read for children. As an adult when we realize they simply do not add up, we take those stories for what they really are, mere stories. Let's all really think. Is this the way a Being capable of creating universes would be running things?? The evidence of how orderly the physics of this world is tells us no. Everything about God will add up just like the physics adds up.

 

[godnotgod]

Stories like Adam and Eve are fun to read for children. As an adult when we realize they simply do not add up, we take those stories for what they really are, mere stories. Let's all really think. Is this the way a Being capable of creating universes would be running things?? The evidence of how orderly the physics of this world is tells us no. Everything about God will add up just like the physics adds up.

Oh, to get to God, you don't add, you subtract!

 

[michaelsherlock]

I think it's fair to say that nearly everyone is born selfish, greedy and corrupt to some degree - it's just human nature.

however, if we follow the teachings of the Bible then we can change into better people.

Satan has entered into human DNA and needs to be fought off by believing in Christ.

I agree! I think if humans were cars they would be made by some shoddy American company that cannot make a car to last like the Japanese do! Perhaps we should all ask God for a refund and point out that he is not very good at creating lasting goodness!

 

[Thief]

assumptions based on evidence is a cognitive tool
not assumptions based on no evidence
and in this case the assumption is based on the evidence of a literal interpretation of the fall narrative.
as the tree of knowledge of good and evil were forbidden therefore, a state of ignorance of the moral consequences of ones actions was what the god character in this story wanted ensure... hence the forbidden fruit.

That is incorrect.

With this as a fixed position you no longer have the ability to move forward in any religious discussion.

Obviously, you have now exposed yourself as a troll.

You know very well, faith has no proving.
There will be no evidence.

All of any theological discussion is based on assumption.
There is a God...no proof.
There is a heaven...no proof.
There is an afterlife...no proof.

All discussion of this sort will have no evidence....only further assumption.
Your continual call for evidence makes you a troll.
You not here to learn anything.
You just trying to say 'nay'.

For your lack of faith ( the ability to make an assumption)....
you have drawn an incorrect conclusion.

 

[waitasec]

That is incorrect.

With this as a fixed position you no longer have the ability to move forward in any religious discussion.

Obviously, you have now exposed yourself as a troll.

You know very well, faith has no proving.
There will be no evidence.

All of any theological discussion is based on assumption.
There is a God...no proof.
There is a heaven...no proof.
There is an afterlife...no proof.

All discussion of this sort will have no evidence....only further assumption.
Your continual call for evidence makes you a troll.
You not here to learn anything.
You just trying to say 'nay'.

For your lack of faith ( the ability to make an assumption)....
you have drawn an incorrect conclusion.

and in this case the assumption is based on the evidence of a literal interpretation of the fall narrative.
as the tree of knowledge of good and evil were forbidden

your selective interpretation of my post goes to show that you need to make up your own argument..so just that you can argue something...
iow, your arguing with yourself...

 

[Thief]

your selective interpretation of my post goes to show that you need to make up your own argument..so just that you can argue something...
iow, your arguing with yourself...

Evasion?....denial?...on whose part?

btw your quoting techniques could lead a third party to confusion...who said what...

 

[Akhilesh]

We all are sinner by birth this is wrong idea.according to hinduism we are divine in nature we are a part of god how can we sinner even baby .

 

[Akhilesh]

We all are sinner by birth this is wrong idea.according to hinduism we are divine in nature we are a part of god how can we sinner even baby .

 

[waitasec]

Evasion?....denial?...on whose part?

btw your quoting techniques could lead a third party to confusion...who said what...

why not take the whole statement... here it is again.

assumptions based on evidence is a cognitive tool
not assumptions based on no evidence
and in this case the assumption is based on the evidence of a literal interpretation of the fall narrative.
as the tree of knowledge of good and evil were forbidden therefore, a state of ignorance of the moral consequences of ones actions was what the god character in this story wanted ensure... hence the forbidden fruit.

it seems you take this interpretation literally...not much of a rogue theologian

 

[Thief]

why not take the whole statement... here it is again.

assumptions based on evidence is a cognitive tool
not assumptions based on no evidence
and in this case the assumption is based on the evidence of a literal interpretation of the fall narrative.
as the tree of knowledge of good and evil were forbidden therefore, a state of ignorance of the moral consequences of ones actions was what the god character in this story wanted ensure... hence the forbidden fruit.

it seems you take this interpretation literally...not much of a rogue theologian

Always the rogue....I follow no one....no one follows me.

And your repeat doesn't weigh more now, than it did the first time.

 

[waitasec]

Always the rogue....I follow no one....no one follows me.

And your repeat doesn't weigh more now, than it did the first time.

:beach:

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Edgy ...

 

[rusra02]

We all are sinner by birth this is wrong idea.according to hinduism we are divine in nature we are a part of god how can we sinner even baby .

When God created the first man, "God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God's image he created him." (Genesis 1:27) The Bible calls the first man a human son of God. (Luke 3:38) Since God created man, man isn't a part of God but rather a son, just as a human son is related to but not the same person as the father.
When Adam rebelled and disobeyed his God, God told him he would die. Adam could not pass on to his offspring perfect life, since he no longer had this. He was slowly dying when his first son was born. The Bible teaches (and I believe) that Adam passed on his sinful condition and death to his children, and thus sin and death spread to all. (Romans 5:12) As an ancient man said: "Who can produce someone clean out of someone unclean? (Job 14:4) One lie that Satan told Eve to get her to disobey God was that she could be "like God", or make herself a goddess. (Genesis 3:5)

​

​

 

[Thief]

When God created the first man, "God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God's image he created him." (Genesis 1:27) The Bible calls the first man a human son of God. (Luke 3:38) Since God created man, man isn't a part of God but rather a son, just as a human son is related to but not the same person as the father.
When Adam rebelled and disobeyed his God, God told him he would die. Adam could not pass on to his offspring perfect life, since he no longer had this. He was slowly dying when his first son was born. The Bible teaches (and I believe) that Adam passed on his sinful condition and death to his children, and thus sin and death spread to all. (Romans 5:12) As an ancient man said: "Who can produce someone clean out of someone unclean? (Job 14:4) One lie that Satan told Eve to get her to disobey God was that she could be "like God", or make herself a goddess. (Genesis 3:5)

Back to square one....'image' is not physical....it's spiritual.

Man as a species male and female, no names no law no restrictions.....
no garden......Day Six.

Chapter Two displays Adam as a chosen son.
He is also part of a manipulation to change the body and the course of Man.

The so called 'temptation and fall' is no more than a means to make sure...
the alteration took hold.

 

[rusra02]

Back to square one....'image' is not physical....it's spiritual.

Man as a species male and female, no names no law no restrictions.....
no garden......Day Six.

Chapter Two displays Adam as a chosen son.
He is also part of a manipulation to change the body and the course of Man.

The so called 'temptation and fall' is no more than a means to make sure...
the alteration took hold.

Your theory that the first two chapters of Genesis are two separate and distinct accounts is without foundation. The Bible presents man's creation as a single event, not as two separate and disparate histories. Chapter two simply expands on the information in chapter one, providing additional details of how the first man was created.

 

[Thief]

Your theory that the first two chapters of Genesis are two separate and distinct accounts is without foundation. The Bible presents man's creation as a single event, not as two separate and disparate histories. Chapter two simply expands on the information in chapter one, providing additional details of how the first man was created.

Chapter Two is not a rewrite of Chapter One.
They are separate events...written that way...on purpose.

 

[waitasec]

Chapter Two is not a rewrite of Chapter One.
They are separate events...written that way...on purpose.