TheBannerofHomuraAkemi
Active Member
The idea that we inherited Adam's sin is false. Instead we have inner nature to sin. Because **** god thats why.
-
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 Trackdayguy
- Start date
The idea that we inherited Adam's sin is false. Instead we have inner nature to sin. Because **** god thats why.
Grief! You might as well ask, "why is there any suffering at all?"!
Simply put, in addition to the Serpent calling Jehovah God a liar, he also questioned God's right to tell A&E what to do. And when Adam joined Satan in his rebellion, Adam in effect refused God's rulership over him - Genesis 3:1-8. (And that was sin, which resulted in making their genetically perfect bodies, imperfect.)
Jehovah God has allowed humans full autonomy, ruling themselves. God has also removed His spirit, i.e., His power which imparts knowledge and protection, from the Earth itself (Isaiah 11:9). And He has let Satan influence mankind (Revelation 12:9), while He Himself has stayed out of human affairs for the most part.
The issue of sovereignty, i.e., can man rule himself or do we need God's rule, will soon be settled....but Jehovah would be defeating His side of the issue, if He stepped in every time there was an injustice!
This world's system, for now, is man's, not God's.
In fact, Jesus called Satan, "the ruler / prince of this world", not God.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Apologies, I'm getting my Catholic made up words mixed up. I did of course mean Limbo.
Sorry, senior moment.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Most people are taught that Adam and Eve were the first to commit the original sin against God.
But this is not true, The original sin was committed by Satan, Way before Adam and Eve came to be.
Both originate form the belief in ancient mythology in Genesis and are equally problematic. .
Trackdayguy
Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
That's pretty much what I used to believe. OUCH.....
outlawState
Deism is dead
Logically, there must have been a first person who communicated with God. Logically it is very probable that it was in the land of Sumer. Why are these ideas necessarily mythological?
This is not a logical chain of reasoning it is based on religious presuppositions; First, by the evidence the first humans are from Africa, not Sumer. Second, these stories are from mythology based on Babylonian, Ugarit, Sumarian, and Canaanite texts that evolved over time. Third, humans communicating with God or God(s) is not necessary based on the evidence.
Trackdayguy
Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
I think its now a pretty well established fact that Adam & Eve or who whoever you want to call them didn't originate from the same place. So why folks hang on to this myth is beyond me. In many ways I guess it much easier to keep believing what we've always believed even if science has proved that there is no way that the worlds population can come from just 2 people.
Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
Certainly the Garden story in Genesis says no such thing. Nor does Jesus, but Paul mentions it once without putting any great emphasis on it. I seem to recall that the idea had had some currency in Alexandria from late in the 2nd century BCE; if that's right, it may be the origin of Paul's idea.
However, it doesn't take off as a big deal till Augustine of Hippo gets behind it around 400 CE.
As Ezekiel 18:20 says,
20 The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
No worries, but I thought I had a monopoly on senior moments.Apologies, I'm getting my Catholic made up words mixed up. I did of course mean Limbo.
Sorry, senior moment.
BTW, "limbo" never was part of official Catholic dogma, even though I know some nuns used to teach it as if it was.
outlawState
Deism is dead
You're overlooking the matter that the bible is the history of the people of God only. The bible does not say that every homosapiens came from Adam and Eve, where apart from Adam and Eve they could have been accounted as mere animals. "Beast" is a Jewish term for a human without a knowledge of God cf. "Wild beasts of Ephesus" 1 Corinthians 15:32.
So I take Adam and Eve as the first believers in God, and therefore the first true man and woman, but not the first homosapiens.
outlawState
Deism is dead
First, we are not talking about biological homosapiens with Adam and Eve. That much is clear, because they had the ability to make clothes. Second you have provided no evidence. Third I think that there is evidence of humans communicating with God, but may be not where you live.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Do you believe that it is possible that the Creation and Fall narratives might have been used as allegory, thus Adam & Eve, the names of which actually do have symbolic meanings, may not have existed as real people but are used to teach lessons?
Trackdayguy
Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
Yes, that is certainly what I believe
exchemist
Veteran Member
That is what makes sense to me and seems to me to fit with the teaching of the main Christian denominations that Genesis should be seen as an allegory. The potential doctrinal bind comes later: what meaning to ascribe to the idea of the redemptive power of Christ's death on the cross, which is at the core of Christianity?
The simplistic, literalist view is that God demanded a blood sacrifice, in atonement for the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. Many people, myself included, find it absurd to conceive of a vengeful God insisting on His pound of flesh, to let humanity off the hook of being...well, just frail humanity. But for those who subscribe to this view of the Atonement, one seems to need an actual sinful act, a literal sin, to be atoned for. For which one needs a real, historical Adam and Eve.
If one take the allegorical view of Adam, Eve, however, one has then to see Original Sin differently, perhaps as I have outlined earlier, i.e. the inherent predisposition of humanity to do wrong, when it has the moral awareness not to. And then perhaps, the life and martyrdom of Christ becomes an example to us all of how we should live. This is the so-called "Moral Influence" theory of the Atonement, which is one of several, but as ancient and respectable as any of the others. More about the Atonement here: Atonement in Christianity - Wikipedia
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Well said, imo, but let me just add that the concept of "original sin" was and is controversial, even within Catholic circles. It is not found within Judaism, for example, and it really defines logic if taken literally.
Therefore, many see it as being more or less symbolic of our propensity to sin as a byproduct of our free will. The issue of Jesus' "atonement" also doesn't make much sense at the literal level but can make sense symbolically.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Yes I think you and I see it in a very similar way, by the look of it. Perhaps because both of us appear to have some kind of liberal Catholic background.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
so....baptism removes original sin......
and Jesus submitted to the practice under the hand of John the Baptist
and when questioned by John.......Jesus replied....
Let this be so.
what do you think Jesus was doing?
Why do you think people are dying?