|
|
|
|
|
| original sin
Posted: 2/9/2006 4:17:29 PM |
Adam and Eve were created on the 8th day and would be the bloodline for Jesus Christ.
Where is that Rose? I thought they were created on the sixth day? I don't see anything created after the sixth..I thought God completed his word on the sixth day and rested on the seventh? | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 2/9/2006 4:38:23 PM | | Gen 2.7 -end is Adam and Eve. It actually doesn't say 8th day but it was after the 7th day of rest. Once again I apologize if I come off as a know it all.....I sincerely don't mean to.I will try to remember to put imho at the end of my posts. Peace | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 2/9/2006 4:54:48 PM | I think adam and eve are a BS myth created by the writer of the bible who didnt have the science we have today.
they had no idea that at one point we werent even humans we where wild animals.
this has been discovered by modern science.
and would have been unknown to the medieval minded people during the times the bible was writtin ..
one more slab of proof that like i said in many other post.
bible was writtin by a man no different then me or the next man. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 2/9/2006 5:27:40 PM | I have serious doubts as well of the Adam n Eve story.
I can certainly understand your statement the bible was written by man. It sure was written by Men. But, how do you get this..........
they had no idea that at one point we werent even humans we where wild animals. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 2/9/2006 5:31:35 PM | I dont know the title of what we where befor we were thought of as human beings..
back in the caveman age.
and this was clear knowledge the writer did not have when he created the adam and even story..
and to clear this up and take this point in.
he didnt have that knowledge when HE CREATED ONE OF THE MANY BIBLE STORIES.
created as in made up | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 2/9/2006 5:37:09 PM | | I have heard some people suggest that Adam n Eve were cavemen....but those same people say the bible is only 4,000 yrs old, so it don't add up with the dinosaur bones and all the relics we have dating so much more older. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 2/12/2006 11:48:03 PM | First off, I want to thank Rio for this thread. I was thinking about it myself, but not being Christian, I figured it might be taken as an attack. It's not. I seriously would like to understand the doctrine, as well.
Here's my issues:
Gen. 2:17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
They didn't die that day. In fact, Adam was supposed to have lived another 700-800+ years. Does this mean God lied to him to keep him from eating the fruit? I've heard the argument that this meant a spiritual death, and that might work, but how would one know that, without backtracking later on?
Gen. 3:7. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked: and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Does this indicate that nakedness is inherently bad, and that Adam and Eve just didn't realise this? If it was, would not God have told them? I'm not sure how nudity even fits into this. Gen. 3:22. And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every which way, to keep the way of the tree of life. Now, here's the crux of the matter, yes? Where's the sin? If the sin was in disobeying the commandment given not to eat of the fruit, which is logical, how were Adam and Eve to know that? Sin is doing what one already knows is wrong, yes? If they hadn't already eaten the fruit, they'd have no idea that disobeying was sinful. It's a catch-22. Then, we get into the verses. 3:22 says "man is become as one of us." Who is us? Why is it a bad thing for man to become like whoever that is? Then, it's "watch out, he might eat the fruit of another tree." Well, that would, almost by definition, be a tree from which he'd already had permission to eat, yes? So, why is it now such a problem? Because he'd "live for ever?" And, this is bad, why? No explanation, just God didn't want man to get his grubby mitts on eternal life. But, then, wasn't he supposed to be dead, anyway? And 3:23, now Adam's got the boot from the garden, Eve going with him, and it's shaping up to be a situation where God just doesn't want them near some powerful metaphysical storehouse of good stuff that they wouldn't have appreciated in the first place, but now that they can, it's off-limits. Hence, 3:24, there's a guard where there wasn't one before. Apparently, this is to keep man out, but why? To guard the tree of life, which was never an issue before. I just don't get it. Now, we can look at this as being that, sure, Adam screwed up, listening to his wife instead of God. That's pretty dumb to begin with. Likewise, Eve grabbing the apple on the snake's say-so, rather than saying, "sorry, God said no." So, he hands out punishments. This could easily be taken like the analogy that I've seen plenty of times before, that, a kid touches the stove, even when Mom says don't do that. There's disobedience, and there's consequences. So, Adam and Eve screwed up, got the consequences. Did God tell the serpent not to tell Eve that the fruit was good? Did He explain to them that it wasn't a physical death he was talking about? I'm not seeing it. So, it makes sense that Adam and Eve got what was coming to them for going against what they were told, even though the whole situation hadn't been explained to them (did they even have a concept of death?). Meantime, we're given to understand that, because two people dropped the ball on one commandment, the rest of us are doomed (without the rest of the Bible to set up the whole redemption thing)? Just doesn't wash for me. Still, this is not called sin. It's not referenced as being the "fall of man" at that point, and it doesn't even hint that man was greater before, lesser after. It just says that these two made a mistake, actually got more knowledge out of it, and wound up paying for it, as do we all. So, where's the original sin? First reference to anything resembling a sin that I can see, is in Gen. 4:8, when Cain kills Abel. But, it's not 'til the Commandments that we even realise that this is a sin. I'm sure I'm missing something on that one. Still, what is the original sin? | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 2/13/2006 6:44:02 AM | Hey! lots of good thoughts there for discussion. The reference to "die today" - well, we know the literal vs. figurative argument. To clear things up maybe it would be better to let the proponents of the bible who go for "figurative" have it their way. I could buy "figurative" myself !
Nudies? I guess no need to worry somebody when there is no problem, like if a kid never said " sh-t" before, the parents aren't likely to give him a list of bad words not to use. So in their pure state nudism was a non-subject I guess, but from the sinful human perspective , somebody who collated the bible wanted us to cover up, obviously !
Which brings us your point that sin is only sin when you know it, are aware. Anyone going to argue this point?
The whole "original sin" theory can be discarded if this one point cannot be defeated by logic.
As to the Tree of Life, they were previously not subject to mortality, so they were necessarily already eating of the tree of Life. Since they were punished, they lost the effects of that tree, so why would God be worried about eternal life-gaining, when he could easily rule against that ?...or maybe he could not reverse the Tree of Knowledge effects, which would be saying he has less than full control.
So he could not reverse the effets of the Tree of Life apparently either. He was worried bout that.And yet he had just reversed the effects of the Tree of Life for Adam and Eve. Maybe there were other trees that were forbidden that are not mentioned...however, if ther Tree of Life was forbidden, then why were Adam and Eve now going to not live too long..but previously they were?
This tree, the Tree of Life, is what makes beings "like us" . So that's where He gets it from. He gets his eternal life from the Tree which He planted. I suppose they must eat more of it periodically.. if the effects cannot be reversed, maybe they wear off ( Adam did die) .
Now if Satan was to put a little signpost pointing to the Tree of Life, what an interesting time he could have. Guess he's not too original. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 2/13/2006 8:52:25 AM | | Interesting topic. Obviously, judging from the thought put into it, an important one too. I find myself wondering though, why anyone would expend so much energy analyzing something they have already decided is based on silly evolutionary throwbacks and psychological anachronisms. If, on the other hand, we are discussing the origin of an aspect of something objectively real (evil), we have, biblical confusions aside, verified a fundamental truth claim of Theism. Apologies to anyone who's motives I may have misinterpreted. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 2/13/2006 10:07:20 AM | I gould go into various reasons why this is interesting.
This original sin theory is a basis for other theories, all of which through the actions of those who hold them correct, end up impinging on our daily life through the actions of those that hold them holy. This occurs through law and thru societal expectations.
The underpinnings of church doctrine should be given a shake to see if they are stable or not.
If most of the idea of original sin can be traced to many years later, through St. Augustine, tehn we can see that original sin theories are the invention of the Catholic church.
Another reason it is a subject of interest is the question just raised, of what constitutes a sin. The topic of "original sin" highlights the weakness of any "existence of sin" theories. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 2/13/2006 11:14:32 AM | Hi Rio. I can now see how even though one may not necessarily believe it, it would still be an interesting historical / intellectual study. Societal expectations? What are you, a nudist or something ?  | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 2/13/2006 1:09:40 PM | well man
about that
I think We have sin, we carry the sin, not exactly from our fathers but we can carry, and it has become genetically, we were no created to die , but it changed.
There are also generational damns like sons who follow unwillinly the mistakes of their fathers.
Moreover I wanna tell you this, Jesus was without sin , that's why he had to come from a virgin , his father wasn't a human being. So genetics has somthing in this subject.
but let me tell you this,
If the death into with adan, and all were considered sinners, With Jesus we have Eternal Life we can be considered rightous.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himselfshall give you a sign; Behold,a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the gloryof God;
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that allhave sinned:
Rom 5:17 if1 by one man's offense death reigned by1 one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18 Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
sincerely
Daniel | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 2/13/2006 3:45:42 PM | I`m going to read this thread some time soon. I think I will save it for a bedtime story.lol  Happy almost Valentine`s | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 2/13/2006 4:24:45 PM |
Moreover I wanna tell you this, Jesus was without sin , that's why he had to come from a virgin , his father wasn't a human being. So genetics has somthing in this subject.
This is interesting, since as you say, Mary was human, and yet Original Sin was not in her ?
Is your theory something like this: that it is male-transmitted and passed thru sex but not birth? so that females do not inherit the "original sin factor" but females can be infected by the sex act?
this is quite similar to St. Augustines thinking in some ways, and he was influential in bringing us the "original sin" theory. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/1/2008 9:05:13 AM | I thought the original sin was chowing down on some fruit. OK - ignoring our betters may work too. But not entirely believing what my betters have said seems to have served me well over my life, so I'm not sure about that one.
The 'folk' concept of original sin seems to be sexual intercourse. Mary had to be a virgin for Christ not to be born in sin.
So how do we achieve God's command to 'go forth and multiply'? Was he talking about arithmetic? If he was really talking about increasing the population, doesn't that make abstinence a big sin too? And puritans and priests therefore among the biggest sinners on the planet?
And we listen to those sinners make us feel guilty about an act which is fundamental to humanity? Has society screwed up anything more than a healthy attitude towards sex? Isn't that a major sin? | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/1/2008 11:24:45 AM | | as far as i know, the "original sin" was when lucifer decided to go againts God...back up in heaven. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/1/2008 11:40:44 AM | | Origional Sin, was suppose to be Adam (being the first son) disobeying his father (which is one of the strongest ten commandments). Coosing to disreguard his promise, and eating the forbidden fruit , made Adam reconize he was naked, and the immedite sin that came with being naked. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/1/2008 11:50:41 AM | I am sorry, but the whole idea of original sin just turns my stomach...
An innocent baby is born into this world and needs to be cleansed? By some fallible man who has read a book? The irony...
To me this is the PERFECT method of controlling others, making them believe that they are inherently faulty, irrevocably flawed and must look outside of themselves for a way to redeem this inborn "sickness".. those with a low self-concept and who are not in touch with their own inborn greatness are easy pickins for others who claim to have all of the answers.. the examples are aplenty..
I cannot ever get behind this idea that I need to ask for forgiveness for being me.. simply for existing.. it is utterly ludicrous, since to me it is my heart and soul that connects me to God, why the heck would "he" want me to apologize for that if I am an infinite portion of "his" love? Makes no sense... if "he" has any wants at all, I think it would be for me to recognize and accept that which connects me to "him", for in doing so, we become one  | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/1/2008 12:15:46 PM | It is the biggest irony that it is this ultimate provider of guilt and hatred of ourselves that we turn to in hopes of finding refuge from same.
I have no sympathy for people who believe they are unclean until they are saved. It is such an insipid concept that any mind with capacity for independent thought and inquisition into the nature of ideas simply begs to ask them, WTF!? | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/1/2008 12:16:41 PM | I don't know the correct answer, but I think the awareness of being naked is symbolic of them losing their innocence. That they are self-conscious, and are no longer like children.
Paul describes the nature of sin in Romans.
(KJV)
[4] Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
[5] For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
[6] But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
[7] What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
[8] But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
[9] For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
[10] And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
[11] For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
[12] Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
[13] Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
[14] For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
[15] For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
[16] If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
[17] Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
[18] For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
[19] For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
[20] Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
[21] I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/1/2008 3:11:54 PM | There was no original sin other than feeding humankind BS with the threat of hell for the consequences of not believing. I can foresee a day when this will be realized and I will be celebrating it as it resounds across the universe!
 | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/1/2008 8:01:28 PM | | Then why do you have to teach a child to be good? | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/2/2008 4:22:58 AM | What is good for a child?
What do you call normal behaviour?
Normal behavior in children depends on the child's age, personality, and physical and emotional development. A child's behavior may be a problem if it doesn't match the expectations of the family or if it is disruptive. Normal or "good" behavior is usually determined by whether it's socially, culturally and developmentally appropriate. Knowing what to expect from your child at each age will help you decide whether his or her behavior is normal.
http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/children/parents/behavior/201.html
Where does this say anything about “original sin”? | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/2/2008 5:34:45 AM | Children should only learn about original sin if they show interest at some stage in their development in exploring archaic and outmoded superstitions. I don't think any child should be coached into believing in it as a reality that applies to them.
I find sassyaquarius' and skypoets' views on this matter very sane and well put. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/2/2008 6:00:40 AM | A quick review of Genesis will reveal that humans were free to do anything, except one thing, which was to "eat of the tree of knowledge." Supposedly, the "tree" gave humans the capicity to know good from evil. Here's the rub- although both Adam and Eve "ate of the tree", they could not have known it was wrong, since they didn't possess the ability to know the difference!
Here's another interesting part: Satan says that, by eating of the tree, humans will gain the ability to know good from evil (and thus "be like GOD") GOD says that the day that humans eat the fruit, they shall "surely die". What happened? Humans gained the knowledge of good and evil, then were banished (still alive) from the Garden. It would seem that Satan told the truth and GOD lied.
It should be obvious the story can't be interpreted literally. For one thing, serpents don't speak (at least not in a language humans understand). The entire story is a metaphor for humans discovering the ability to create life and thus become like GOD. I'm refering, of course, to sex. Eve's breast may have been the forbidden fruit, for once Adam tasted it he liked it and became aroused and introduced Eve to the "staff of Life" that eventually created Cain. Sex is constantly seen in a bad light throughout the Bible.
A most interesting book is "When GOD was a Woman" which shows the differences in theology between religions that see GOD as male and those that see the GODDESS as female. "Original sin" takes on new meaning when seen from that perspective. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
