Original Sin

[Heathen Hammer]

This is the last time I'll answer these questions from you.

Again.. Saying, "Don't touch that hot stove, or it will burn you," does not specify when. Neither does saying, "Don't eat that, or you'll get fat."

See, here you attempt to conflate something that DOES imply 'immediate' with something that DOES imply 'some day'.

You know exactly what I am talking about.

[[edit: please note: Later Sleeppy wishes to know if anyone else agrees with this assessment above. If you happen to, feel free to say so. Thank you.]]


You are left with having to make the excuse that 'these exact words weren't used', when all throughout the day neither of us are forced to sit there and fully explain in extremely intricate detail what every single sentence we state, really means.

This is the tale presented to you, and these are the words; they don't make sense if you actually scrutinize them. the Hebrews were many things but they were not super-sophisticated philosophers when it came to their origin tale. Sorry, that's just the way it is, and the only way to make them make sense is to insert ideas and concepts that are not normal, are not typically understood, and are obtuse and/or nonsensical. Ideas that certainly weren't added at the time this was written down.

They didn't gain any knowledge. They were released to their own decisions of good and evil. What sense does it make to say we have the knowledge of good and evil, from a fruit our ancestors ate, if it's obvious we don't. If that was true, there would be no need for Moses to come down from the mountain with tablets with commandments on them.

Now now, let's not start asking what sense the Tree makes.

It makes no sense in light of the fact that the Tree of Life was in the garden, either.

 

[Thief]

This is the last time I'll answer these questions from you.

Again.. Saying, "Don't touch that hot stove, or it will burn you," does not specify when. Neither does saying, "Don't eat that, or you'll get fat."

They didn't gain any knowledge. They were released to their own decisions of good and evil. What sense does it make to say we have the knowledge of good and evil, from a fruit our ancestors ate, if it's obvious we don't. If that was true, there would be no need for Moses to come down from the mountain with tablets with commandments on them.

The garden event was what?

Was it not an alteration in the spirit and direction of all mankind?
Genesis is a story of manipulation.

If knowledge was not the acquisition...then what do you think the Garden event was about?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Gotta ask....do you think Adam existed at all?

I was quite clear in a previous post that this entire discussion occurs in the abstract for me. No, there were no Adam and Eve. This is entirely a critique/discussion of the Hebrew/Christian myth, and the errors it contains.

 

[Sleeppy]

See, here you attempt to conflate something that DOES imply 'immediate' with something that DOES imply 'some day'.

You know exactly what I am talking about.

I'm curious to see if anyone actually agrees with you.

 

[Thief]

I was quite clear in a previous post that this entire discussion occurs in the abstract for me. No, there were no Adam and Eve. This is entirely a critique/discussion of the Hebrew/Christian myth, and the errors it contains.

Adam would be the first to walk with God.

This one item would make him unique.

Someone had to be first.

 

[Sleeppy]

The garden event was what?

Was it not an alteration in the spirit and direction of all mankind?
Genesis is a story of manipulation.

If knowledge was not the acquisition...then what do you think the Garden event was about?

I don't think it was as you say. I'll leave it at that, because you're reading your own theory into it.

 

[Thief]

I don't think it was as you say. I'll leave it at that, because you're reading your own theory into it.

No theory about it.
As is.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm curious to see if anyone actually agrees with you.

Even if they did, what would it matter to you?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Adam would be the first to walk with God.
This one item would make him unique.
Someone had to be first.

Only if it were true.

 

[Thief]

Only if it were true.

Someone had to be first.....true.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

This is the last time I'll answer these questions from you.

Again.. Saying, "Don't touch that hot stove, or it will burn you," does not specify when. Neither does saying, "Don't eat that, or you'll get fat."

First, I would point out that, again, you didn't actually answer my question.

Second, this example pair that you give instead, is interesting in that it essentially underlines why your spin on God's warning makes no sense in the context of the story.

Not many people deliberately put their hands on hot stoves, but a huge number eat themselves to obesity and death. Why? Because the former result is immediate, the latter far in some nebulous future.

And with that I will say: QED

 

[Sleeppy]

Even if they did, what would it matter to you?

I proved it wrong.. Even gave cross references to refute your claim. All you could give was a hypothetical, that even if it supported you (which it didn't), had no merit, because "same day" is not specified in the text. Neither is "next day," or "ground shipping."

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I proved it wrong.. Even gave cross references to refute your claim. All you could give was a hypothetical, that even if it supported you (which it didn't), had no merit, because "same day" is not specified in the text. Neither is "next day," or "ground shipping."

You proved nothing of the kind. lol
You cross referenced to something said by Paul [who is merely pondering on something said by someone he never met], whereas I gave you direct Hebrew scripture specifically concerning the subject; you were reduced to giving a previous citation from a modern translation which added a bit.
I did not give a hypothetical, I simply explained the logical conclusion of precisely what was said.
I also gave outside examples where critical thought leads one to the same conclusions concerning the language based on our own everyday experiences, to back up my conclusion. An example which, by the way, you refused to complete yourself because it refutes you.

Seriously, this couldn't have gone much better for me.

[edit:] After looking back at the 'cross reference' you allude to here and later, I see you mean the little 'cross reference' sidebars, and I can't help but note that the first one I see, is a Genesis reference. I will first point out that, again, it is a modern translation that adds to the original Hebrew; but, a bit more interesting, is that it words itself thusly: "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
The phrasing there is "WHEN YOU EAT OF IT", which further undermines your own point. That directly implies an immediate result. That's how you would say so in English.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I proved it wrong.. Even gave cross references to refute your claim. All you could give was a hypothetical, that even if it supported you (which it didn't), had no merit, because "same day" is not specified in the text. Neither is "next day," or "ground shipping."

In any case, regarding this statement though: what would other people agreeing with me have to do with it in any case?
Are you simply praying for the opportunity to appeal to numbers as a last effort to refute me?

 

[Sleeppy]

In any case, regarding this statement though: what would other people agreeing with me have to do with it in any case?

I want to see if that thinking pattern actually exists with other people.

 

[Sleeppy]

You proved nothing of the kind. lol
You cross referenced to something said by Paul [who is merely pondering on something said by someone he never met], whereas I gave you direct Hebrew scripture specifically concerning the subject; you were reduced to giving a previous citation from a modern translation which added a bit.
I did not give a hypothetical, I simply explained the logical conclusion of precisely what was said.
I also gave outside examples where critical thought leads one to the same conclusions concerning the language based on our own everyday experiences, to back up my conclusion. An example which, by the way, you refused to complete yourself because it refutes you.

Seriously, this couldn't have gone much better for me.

I'm shocked. Honestly. As shocked as I would be if someone tried convincing me, I couldn't spell my name.

 

[jasonwill2]

sinning is fun

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I want to see if that thinking pattern actually exists with other people.

Fair enough, I added a little request to the post.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm shocked. Honestly. As shocked as I would be if someone tried convincing me, I couldn't spell my name.

"Sleeppy"

You're shocked? lol, don't know what to tell you.

 

[jasonwill2]

The reason we are born into sin is so that we can survive. The True Cosmic God (whoever he is) that is ageless and timeless gave it to us so that we could live in this world of consistent action and reaction (science).

It's the Christians and their evil god that made a scam by saying "if you sin, you go to hell. everyone sins. but hold on there! sign your soul off and be good, and you won't burn!"

In all reality all the christian souls get eaten by their god so that he can fuel his domination over the lives of a third of the world's population. It strokes his ego.

Thankfully I know that the "original sin" is only an excuse to express my beliefs on sin, as I do not bother myself with things that tell me I am going to Hell anyway.

I'm not being satirical either; I really believe that Yahweh eats the souls that sign his spiritual contract of "salvation", because it entails one to "sell their souls to Jesus" when you think about it. Odd that I haven't Sold my soul to Satan yet, not that there is any logical reason or benefit of doing so. That's like selling a man something he has already has owned for years.

The original sin didn't exist, sin is ageless. If there was an original sin in the Christian view, it would be my beloved Satan, not Adam.

Ok, maybe I am exaggerating my beliefs a little bit here, or more accurately, putting them in a very blunt and lazily put language since I've been up all night again. I don't have the mental energy to beat around the bush so to speak.