• 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

Riders

Well-Known Member
What are your views on original sin? This is both for hard-line literalists and those who believe it's all metaphorical

For the believers in the literal interpretation: I assume you reject evolution - otherwise the Adam and Eve story can't really be a thing. Who's to say when the first 'humans' walked the earth, considering we all have varying amounts of neanderthal DNA still floating around.

For the metaphorical believers: unless Adam and eve literally gave us original sin, jesus' martyrdom was pointless. If you believe Jesus was a mythical character, how can you assume God is different?

Thanks for indulging me :)

I do not believe in Adam and Eve. I do believe a guy named Jesus existed, was crucified but not the God man described in churches and the new testament. He was crucified and taught us to give our lives for our neighbor. But no God man.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
And the bible also contradicts itself, over and over and over again. Sometimes, something is true, other times it isn't. Facts get jumbled. It can be read thousands of different ways -- and it has been, leading to dozens of denominations, and tens of thousands of sects. In other words, as a guide to "important and existential truth," it is perfectly useless.

There is definitely no contradictions in the Bible.
You just don't know how to read the Bible to put things together to make any sense of the bible
That's all
If you believe you have a contradiction bring it on, as I love challenges.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
What are your views on original sin? This is both for hard-line literalists and those who believe it's all metaphorical

For the believers in the literal interpretation: I assume you reject evolution - otherwise the Adam and Eve story can't really be a thing. Who's to say when the first 'humans' walked the earth, considering we all have varying amounts of neanderthal DNA still floating around.

For the metaphorical believers: unless Adam and eve literally gave us original sin, jesus' martyrdom was pointless. If you believe Jesus was a mythical character, how can you assume God is different?

Thanks for indulging me :)

I believe we were all born pure and without sin.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
You see what you are trying to do -- and extremely disingenuously, Ken?

First, that comment does not answer any of my questions, in any respect at all. That's disingenuous.

Second, you say that my not "knowing God" is because I am "ignoring" and "pretending." That's disingenuous. I've told you many, many, many times why I do not believe...you have simply decided to ignore all of that and fall back on "ignore and pretend."

And, Ken, I am at peace. I'm in the latter phase of my life, and I'm happy. I'm unafraid of the future. I'm immensely interested in the present, and I'm well informed about the past. I am engaged in an intellectual exercise because exercising my intelligence gives me great pleasure. And since you know that, too, from our many conversations, I assume that you are being disingenuous there, too. It's either that, or you are ignoring and pretending never to have heard anything I've said before.

dis·in·gen·u·ous
(dĭs′ĭn-jĕn′yo͞o-əs)
adj.
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "Increasingly, the question of immigration has become adisingenuous stalking-horse for race and racial hostility" (Tyler Stovall).
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.

I completely disagree with your statement. If anything, your questions and statements are disingenuous.

If you are at such peace then you wouldn't be demeaning the Christian faith so often. When one is at peace, irritants have no power. If you are unafraid of the future and immensely interested in the present... great.

But don't tell me that I-K-N-0-W-N-0-G-0-D is the beginning point of meeting someone. If someone came to me and said "I want you to know a young lady/man" and my response had that hew, you would never meet him/her either.

THAT is disingenuous. If you are fine without a god or God or gods fine or don't like the God that I serve, great. But leave it at and be the god of your own future.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
There is definitely no contradictions in the Bible.
You just don't know how to read the Bible to put things together to make any sense of the bible
That's all
If you believe you have a contradiction bring it on, as I love challenges.

The Bible is full of contradictions, anachronisms and errors of geography.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
The Bible is full of contradictions, anachronisms and errors of geography.

So you say, doesn't prove a thing.
If you believe there's s contradiction

Give the contradiction. You won't be the first that I showed there is no contradiction, just you not understanding what your reading that's all.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
So you say, doesn't prove a thing.
If you believe there's s contradiction

Give the contradiction. You won't be the first that I showed there is no contradiction, just you not understanding what your reading that's all.

101 Contradictions in the Bible:

  • Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9).
  • Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5) God sent his prophet to threaten David...
  • Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9) The chief of the mighty men...
  • One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4).
  • Seven thousand (I Chronicles 18:4) How many stalls for horses did...
101 Contradictions in the Bible.
www.answering-christianity.com/101_bible_contradictions.htm
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
101 Contradictions in the Bible:

  • Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9).
  • Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5) God sent his prophet to threaten David...
  • Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9) The chief of the mighty men...
  • One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4).
  • Seven thousand (I Chronicles 18:4) How many stalls for horses did...
101 Contradictions in the Bible.
www.answering-christianity.com/101_bible_contradictions.htm

All you got is what someone else considers to be a contradiction and then you repeat wh
101 Contradictions in the Bible:

  • Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9).
  • Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5) God sent his prophet to threaten David...
  • Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9) The chief of the mighty men...
  • One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4).
  • Seven thousand (I Chronicles 18:4) How many stalls for horses did...
101 Contradictions in the Bible.
www.answering-christianity.com/101_bible_contradictions.htm

First in 2 Samuel 24:9, Here we find Joab counted the men of Judah were 5 hundred thousand men. Ok

Now in 1 Chronicles 21:5, here we find Joab counted only 4 hundred and threescore and ten thousand men.Ok

Now if you had read 1 Chronicles 21:5-6.
You would haved found in verse 6 Joab deducted did not count the tribe of Levi and Benjamin in Verse 6.
As Joab did in 2 Samuel 24:9. But deducted the tribe of Levi and Benjamin out of the number that Joab taken in 2 Samuel 24:9.

Therefore there is no contradiction, only you repeating something that someone else said and not reading them for yourself.
Had you read both 2 Samuel 24;9 and
1 Chronicles 21:5-6.
You would haved found in Verse 6 that Joab did not count the tribe of Levi and Benjamin, where in 2 Samuel 24:9 Joab did count the tribe of Levi and Benjamin.

In 2 Samuel 24:9 Joab counted the tribe of Levi and Benjamin.
Then in 1 Chronicles 21:5-6, Joab did not count the tribe of Levi and Benjamin in verse 6.

Thereby the number would be smaller in 1 Chronicles 21:5-6, than the number that Joab taken in 2 Samuel 24:9.

Read 1 Chronicles 21:5-6,
Notice in verse 6 that Joab did not count the tribe of Levi and Benjamin, which made the number smaller than what Joab taken in 2 Samuel 24:9.

Therefore your contradiction is false.

All you did is repeat what someone else said and did not read them for yourself. Which makes you look foolish, for not reading them before you post them.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
All you got is what someone else considers to be a contradiction and then you repeat wh


First in 2 Samuel 24:9, Here we find Joab counted the men of Judah were 5 hundred thousand men. Ok

Now in 1 Chronicles 21:5, here we find Joab counted only 4 hundred and threescore and ten thousand men.Ok

Now if you had read 1 Chronicles 21:5-6.
You would haved found in verse 6 Joab deducted did not count the tribe of Levi and Benjamin in Verse 6.
As Joab did in 2 Samuel 24:9.

Therefore there is no contradiction, only you repeating something that someone else said and not reading them for yourself.
Had you read both 2 Samuel 24;9 and
1 Chronicles 21:5-6.
You would haved found in Verse 6 that Joab did not count the tribe of Levi and Benjamin, where in 2 Samuel 24:9 Joab did count the tribe of Levi and Benjamin.

In 2 Samuel 24:9 Joab counted the tribe of Levi and Benjamin.
Then in 1 Chronicles 21:5-6, Joab did not count the tribe of Levi and Benjamin in verse 6.

Thereby the number would be smaller in 1 Chronicles 21:5-6, than the number that Joab taken in 2 Samuel 24:9.

Read 1 Chronicles 21:5-6,
Notice in verse 6 that Joab did not count the tribe of Levi and Benjamin, which made the number smaller than what Joab taken in 2 Samuel 24:9.

Therefore your contradiction is false.

All you did is repeat what someone else said and did not read them for yourself. Which makes you look foolish, for not reading them before you post them.

The Bible is full of gross exaggerations. Note that there was NO Ur of the Chaldeans until 800 BC. Study..
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
The Bible is full of gross exaggerations. Note that there was NO Ur of the Chaldeans until 800 BC. Study..

It's like I said, upon your reading the Bible you have no understanding of what you are reading

Had you back up and read the whole chapter and found what the Subject and Article is about first
You may haved found there is no contradictions, only people having no understanding of what their reading.
 
What are your views on original sin? This is both for hard-line literalists and those who believe it's all metaphorical

For the believers in the literal interpretation: I assume you reject evolution - otherwise the Adam and Eve story can't really be a thing. Who's to say when the first 'humans' walked the earth, considering we all have varying amounts of neanderthal DNA still floating around.

For the metaphorical believers: unless Adam and eve literally gave us original sin, jesus' martyrdom was pointless. If you believe Jesus was a mythical character, how can you assume God is different?

Thanks for indulging me :)
What are your views on original sin? This is both for hard-line literalists and those who believe it's all metaphorical

For the believers in the literal interpretation: I assume you reject evolution - otherwise the Adam and Eve story can't really be a thing. Who's to say when the first 'humans' walked the earth, considering we all have varying amounts of neanderthal DNA still floating around.

For the metaphorical believers: unless Adam and eve literally gave us original sin, jesus' martyrdom was pointless. If you believe Jesus was a mythical character, how can you assume God is different?


Thanks for indulging me :)

I don't think the term original sin is in scripture and if you think about it from a Christian viewpoint original sin began with Satan not with Adam.

The sin committed by Adam and Eve was the sin of disobedience by eating the fruit from the only one tree in the garden they were instructed by God not to eat. To be fair God had warned them that if they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge they would die as would all future generations.

Not sure because we have neanderthal DNA 'floating around' proves anything, certainly modern humankind only displayed sophisticated writings and civilisations around 6,000 years ago.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
What are your views on original sin?

I think sin means person rejects God, or lives apart from God. Adam and Eve rejected God and so sin came to exist. Because of Adam and Eve, we are born to this separation from God and so inherit the original sin. The original sin means we are born apart from God, in disconnection with God. Jesus came to restore the connection. By him, we can again be connected to God and be free from the sin.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
dis·in·gen·u·ous
(dĭs′ĭn-jĕn′yo͞o-əs)
adj.
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "Increasingly, the question of immigration has become adisingenuous stalking-horse for race and racial hostility" (Tyler Stovall).
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.

I completely disagree with your statement. If anything, your questions and statements are disingenuous.
I stand by my statement, for the very reasons that I gave, and I will provide a real demonstration below, based again on your own words. I said that you were disingenuous because while pretending to answer my post, you ignored every question asked. I said that you were disingenuous because you accused me of "ignoring" and "pretending not to know" God. I do not "pretend not to know." I do not know. I cannot ignore what doesn't exist, any more than I can pay attention to it. Such is not my way. These are honest statements of who I am.
If you are at such peace then you wouldn't be demeaning the Christian faith so often. When one is at peace, irritants have no power. If you are unafraid of the future and immensely interested in the present... great.
I do not demean the Christian faith. I demean the things that people tell me in the name of their faith (and that includes other faiths, just to be clear), and then expect me to accept as true and good, when it is my honest belief that they are often not true, and very often not good.
But don't tell me that I-K-N-0-W-N-0-G-0-D is the beginning point of meeting someone. If someone came to me and said "I want you to know a young lady/man" and my response had that hew, you would never meet him/her either.

THAT is disingenuous. If you are fine without a god or God or gods fine or don't like the God that I serve, great. But leave it at and be the god of your own future.
And here's the example I spoke of, Ken. If I said, "I want you to know a young lady/man," surely you would begin by allowing yourself to be introduced, no?

So introduce me! But hear this: I don't get to "introduce you to George" by telling you what I think of George. You have to meet him and learn who is for yourself, and decide whether you wish to continue the acquaintance and know more. Therefore, you can't "introduce me to God" by telling me what you think God wants me to know. I'd need to hear it from God, and decide for myself whether I was interested.

Just a quick example of that, so you understand where I'm coming from. I have been told by Christians, throughout my life, that "God loves me." Even you've said it. But I have yet to see a single shred of evidence of any such thing, and in the absence of all evidence, why on earth should I conceive of such a silly thing? Remember that old childish dictum, "God sees the little sparrow fall" that you heard in Sunday School? So what if God sees it. If he doesn't do anything about it, what bloody difference does it make to the sparrow?
 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I realize that evidence runs contrary to your position... but let's look at it:

Israel archaeology dig provides evidence of King David's reign
City Gate From the Time of King David Unearthed In Miracle Village
New Finds Suggest Biblical Kings David and Solomon Actually Existed | Archaeology | Sci-News.com
King David's name found in Biblical archaeology

Archaeology is painstakingly slow, but you still might want to update your position that King David is a myth.
The first link, supposedly about archaeology, is from "Ecumenical News." Really?

Frankly, I find medical journals too hard to read because they're so technical, so I get all my medical information from Sports Illustrated. A lot easier to read, and doesn't upset my cherished predispositions.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
There is definitely no contradictions in the Bible.
You just don't know how to read the Bible to put things together to make any sense of the bible
That's all
If you believe you have a contradiction bring it on, as I love challenges.
Here's one of my little favourites? In Exodus 9:3-6, God destroys all the "cattle" (which, from verse 3, includes the horses) of the Egyptians. All of them! Just a little later, in Ex 9:9-11, the people and the cattle are afflicted with boils (why would boils bother dead cattle?), and a little further on in Ex 12:12,29, all the first-born of the cattle of the Egyptians are destroyed (how do you re-kill a dead horse?), and finally, in Ex 14:9, after having all their cattle destroyed, then afflicted with boils, and then their first-born cattle destroyed, the Egyptians pursue Moses on horseback!

One can only presume these are the ghosts of twice-dead horses!
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I think sin means person rejects God, or lives apart from God. Adam and Eve rejected God and so sin came to exist. Because of Adam and Eve, we are born to this separation from God and so inherit the original sin. The original sin means we are born apart from God, in disconnection with God. Jesus came to restore the connection. By him, we can again be connected to God and be free from the sin.

Nonsense. There was no original sin doctrine until the 3rd century AD.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Nonsense. There was no original sin doctrine until the 3rd century AD.
I agree with one.
This doctrine was cooked by the Church in 3rd Century AD and never taught by Jesus.
Paul's-Pagan-Christianity,I understand, is "Anti-Jesus" and "Anti-Christ". Right, please?

Regards
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I agree with one.
This doctrine was cooked by the Church in 3rd Century AD and never taught by Jesus.
Paul's-Pagan-Christianity,I understand, is "Anti-Jesus" and "Anti-Christ". Right, please?

Regards
The doctrine justifies the crucifixion.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Here's one of my little favourites? In Exodus 9:3-6, God destroys all the "cattle" (which, from verse 3, includes the horses) of the Egyptians. All of them! Just a little later, in Ex 9:9-11, the people and the cattle are afflicted with boils (why would boils bother dead cattle?), and a little further on in Ex 12:12,29, all the first-born of the cattle of the Egyptians are destroyed (how do you re-kill a dead horse?), and finally, in Ex 14:9, after having all their cattle destroyed, then afflicted with boils, and then their first-born cattle destroyed, the Egyptians pursue Moses on horseback!

One can only presume these are the ghosts of twice-dead horses!

Well it's evidence that you didn't do a very good job in reading Exodus 9:3, had you,. You would haved found, that God did not destroy the horses
Notice the word ( Murrain ) which means
Pestilence.
Murrain = Pestilence
Therefore God did not destroy the horses, but put Pestilence on the horses. That's along ways from destroying the horses.
Well it's evidence that you didn't read
Exodus 9:9-11 very good at all.

Had you, You would haved notice in
Verse 9
( Shall be a boil breaking forth with Blain's upon man, and upon beast)
Notice ( beast) beast are not cattle,
Beast are wild animals,
not domestic cattle. Cattle are domestic cows and not wild beast animals.

Maybe you should study whats the difference between Cattle and Beast are.
Cattle are domestic animals and beasts are wild animals.

As for Exodus 12:9,12, had you read this, You would haved notice ( beast) are not consider domestic animals
Beasts are wild animals and not domestic animals.
horses, cows are domestic animals and not wild beasts.
If your trying to show contradiction in the Bible, Your not doing a very good job at it.
So far I have disproved everything that you have given.
 
Top