|
|
|
|
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/8/2008 5:23:08 PM | | Some times we need a bone. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/8/2008 8:04:51 PM | Thanks to all the people who have posted thoughtful comments on this thread. I don't want to deny the importance of parsing out the literal meaning of the two Genesis stories, but I am more interested in the metaphorical meanings it has. And in the context of original sin, which was what opened this topic, I think the whole story is a metaphor. First of all, I totally agree with the people who say it's horrible that babies should be penalized for the sins of their ancestors, that "the sins of the fathers are visited on the sons", and that people die because of the sins of others going back to a very first sin.
But if you think about it, this is a pretty accurate description of the way the world actually works. Our own disfunctional behavior screws up the lives of the people around us just as much as it screws up our own lives. Parents poor choices impact their children, and the worst choices--child abuse, addiction, whatever--resound through their descendents for many generations.
One of the things things Genesis and all the Hebrew scriptures do that I really appreciate is that it grapples with the nasty things humans do to each other, and tries to find an explanation for it. Like the book of Job, the creation story says that even though the world was created to be good, in fact if you look around there's a lot of injustice and seemingly random chaos in the way the world works. Genesis teaches us--ok, me--that we all have a tendency to rebel against even limits that are good for us, to take the advice of people who may not be trustworthy, to make bad choices that will hurt others.
In an aside, a lot of this conversation seems to be divorced from the way most of the Christians I know use the scriptures in their spiritual practice. For those who haven't spent much time using scripture or in Christian Bible study, this is one of the most typical ways we absorb scripture:
An awful lot of the time people read a set passage of scripture with the intention to find a way to apply it to their own lives, usually that very day. You read the text over slowly, several times, and, if you're in a study group, discuss it at length, and (usually) either begin or end with a prayer requestion insight or guidance. The scriptures are a medium by means of which we discern God's purposes for us as individuals or as a group. To make an analogy that I hope other Christians won't find offensive, we use the Bible in a way very similar to the way some people use tarot cards--to help clarify our path.
This means that what the surface the text isn't necessarily what the practitioner reads into it. I don't know much about how Jews and Muslims use scripture in their daily lives, but I would bet that they, too, are typically most interested in application. Of course, there are lots of other ways to read scripture, but figuring out the surface meaning of the text and relating it to the rest of the Bible is only a start. And I do mean _a_ start. There are plenty of other ways people start working with the Bible, including (for instance) memorizing short passages to use as breath prayers. That's a meditative technique my own church teaches young children. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/9/2008 8:57:02 AM | I Cor. 15 does a fine job at explaining this in detail..and filling in the pieces of the puzzle regarding the prophetic utterances of the Day of creation spoken in Genesis 1. I Cor. 15 is an explanation of "How are the dead raised and With what kind of body will they come?" The reference to the first Adam and the second Adam is used only as a metaphor to help answer that question.
I can see why someone who really, really, really wants to believe the bible is the infallible, living word of god would do everything in their power to explain away the inconsistencies in the bible. If however, you start from the premise that the bible began as nothing more than the desire of the leaders of a nomadic tribe to keep the tribe together in a world of other gods (even god said thou shall not have any [oi] ther gods before me ) \, then the writings become very clear and easy to understand. From that basis it is easy to see why there are inconsistencies in the bible and why believers need to contort the scriptures to make thinks fit.
Then along comes a rabbi named Saul of Tarsus and you have the makings of a whole new religion with their own god child who is nothing at all like his father. The father being a jealous and vengeful god, and the son being a god of love. The leaders of the Israelites needed a jealous and vengeful god to keep the tribe in line and to show them how their own god was the leader of the pack. What tribe is going to want to worship a second rate god that the god of all the other tribes can kick around? Why not make it so your god is the one kicking butt?
When Saul tires to get his own people to change to a more loving god, the Jews want nothing to do with it. When that doesn't happen, he comes up with the loving son idea and starts a new religion which is very appealing to the persecuted masses. Why wouldn't percecuted non-Jews want to worship a god who says he loves who instead of that Jewish god who does nothing but cause the Jews sorrow and hardship?
Over time con men figured out that this new religion's ideal of a loving god and original sin is ripe for exportation and bingo you have the multitude of religions, sects, denominations, off shoots, etc., that you have today. All led by con men who wanted a piece of the pie. So what is the best way to con people? Tell them they are full of original sin and they the con men are the only ones with the solution if only you will do what they say the all loving god tells them that you need to do. It's like when someone goes to a psychiatrist to get rid of a mental condition - it ends up taking a long, long time and costs a lot of money. And guess what? The original sin gets cured, but the patient finds out that there are a now all kinds of new sins that they have to be careful of, and lo and behold, they end up with a ton of new sins that keep them coming back for more and more sessions. Meanwhile the con men get more and more sinners, build bigger and bigger churches (every hear of mega churches?) and they get richer and richer "while the poor you will always have with you."
Like I said before. IMO Original sin is the scare tactic that gets people into the con man's mega church, but everyday sin keeps them there. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/9/2008 1:51:30 PM | Ray, all you really have are theories with no support. If this is your theory then that is fine, but I fail to see how it addresses the concept of 'original sin' as the scriptures do support. Those who do not understand and see the grace in Christ, remain in the dark and can only make discernments biased from the darkness. Original sin or selfcenteredness and self- seeking as I define it to be, cannot reveal this grace in Christ, because all that is available as an intellectual premise or foundation, is the fruit of seeking self glory, produced by the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When God separated the light from the darkness on the first spoken 'Day' of creation, it was not a separation of good and evil that is found only in the tree producing this knowledge....it was a separation of life and death, and the separation of light and darkness was the separation of the tree of life from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In any event there is no arguement that we can resolve concerning this, so all I can do is share what I understand, and impart this in the thread as my opinions.
As I understood it, "original sin" referred to one's birth. For example, Mary was born free of original sin since her's was an immaculate conception. (and no, I'm not referring to her conceiving Jesus, but her own conception (via St. Anne's fervant prayer)).
As the story goes, she went on to conceive Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Jesus was without original sin due to his special conception.
Though I agree with your first comment, that original sin is passed on through the birthing of mankind into the world. I must disagree that Christ was not made into this same original sinful nature as all of mankind has been. Though Christ never sinned, I belioevethat He was made into a sinner, in order that He be made like His brothers in every way( Hebrews 2). Christ was made perfect as a Son of God, through His sufferring, and unless He was made into the likeness of sinful flesh, then He has no part of humankind. I believe that there are scriptures to validate this as well.
2 Corinthians 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.
Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Hebrews 2:17
For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/9/2008 8:12:46 PM |
When God separated the light from the darkness on the first spoken 'Day' of creation, it was not a separation of good and evil that is found only in the tree producing this knowledge....it was a separation of life and death, and the separation of light and darkness was the separation of the tree of life from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Talk about a theory without support. Where did this come from except in the mind of someone desperate to prove a point? And quoting what someone else said someone else said someone else said the bible said is not reliable support. It is only support from "the choir." | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/15/2008 12:33:22 PM | I'm not Christian which makes me completely ignorant of the definition and meaning of "original sin" in Christian theology. It'd be cool if someone to teach me more about that, but for now I'm just basing this on what I've read in the Bible and some other sources, but mostly just my own opinion.
Says in the Bible that G-d placed Adam in the Garden to work it and guard it. Then G-d tells him, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat of it, for on the day you eat of it, you shall surely die." (Gen. 2: 16-17) I always understood this to mean that death became the eventual outcome for Adam and everyone afterward. But on that day, it was just the fact of his mortality that was established. I mean it says adam lived 930 years or something so despite the big slip up, he obviously had a good run, even for Biblical life spans. Later on the serpent tells Eve she will not die from eating the fruit, "for on the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like G-d, knowing Good and Evil."(Gen. 3: 5) And I've never heard of mind altering apples that change your whole preception of reality. But who knows how they grew them in the Garden. However, when G-d informs them of the consequences for tripping on apples, that's when "original sin" is put into play, and the world turns into one of great suffering. Women will now have to experience a lot of pain during childbirth(Gen. 3:16) and men will have to work hard and sweat to grow food going from "dust to dust" when it's all said and done.(Gen. 3:19) But I didn't see anywhere that it says children are born with sin. I don't buy that at all. If anything, I think the children are born in a world with sin, cruelty and violence which makes them no more than potential victims of other's sin for the early part of their lives. But by religion's standards we all eventually become sinners on some level, it's a safe bet that as the child grows up he'll aquire a few of his own.
From what I've read the story of Adam and Eve is meant to demonstrate a theological idea of how the world as we know it came into being, and about human nature as well. Supposedly Adam and Eve could've chosen to live together forever in a blissful state in the Garden, but whether it's fact or fiction and whatever the true meaning of any of that story is supposed to be, because no one has figured that out to this day. We're all just guessing and throwing out opinions on here which we're all probably wrong about anyway, and it's annoying to see insults from people that think their wrong answer is so much better than another person's simply because their's is filled with a bunch of hot air masquerading as logic, while another person just has faith in something and can't fully explain why. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/15/2008 9:03:06 PM | Sin is missing the mark. If you are born in a world that is so off target how do you think you are able to fly straight with out help? Vacation Bible school keeps kids busy, teaches them that God loves them and has a plan for their lives, gives them a safe place to be real. I do not know what book has children going to hell from the dad's mistakes only suffering for them. My Bible says that Children are a blessing from God, That He is the father to Fatherless, that he has angels at his throne pleading the case for children all around the world and that it is better to kill yourself then hurt a child in a way that stops it from coming to an understanding of a loving God.
Adam was told not to eat he did the world from that point on was with out a man it could count on to keep it subdued and peaceful. Eve was not told she could not eat it that is why all the bad came down when she gave it to her husband who was with her. God said Adam because you... Eve was delt with but the world does not suffer because of her. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/16/2008 8:54:04 AM | From what I have read I got the impression that Eve was fooled into thinking that well first, God had lied. The serpent stated that if she ate the fruit that she would not die. The thing was that when we sin we experience a form of death. Just as when any part of our body is shut off from circulation it dies of lack of oxygen
when we sin it separates us from God ....but it is in Him that we live and move and have our being.
So the original sin was to me somewhat like contracting a blood disease that carried the death gene. Although Eve didn't drop dead on the spot... she and Adam gave birth to the first murderer passed it on and so on. And of course they all eventually died ....... I think of Christ as the antidote or transfusion that brings us back into spiritual life...... that never dies. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/17/2008 3:54:22 PM | First off, the Original Sin story says, God fashioned Adam out of dirt, before constructing Eve out of spare parts as a companion to give the guy something with which to occupy his spare time. She was clearly an afterthought and was obviously conceived from the outset to be the subservient and repressed half of the partnership. Eves' lower rank in the hierarchy is reinforced by the tale of how it was she who tempted Adam with the forbidden fruit. I know there's mention of a talking snake but who can take that one seriously? We all know who the real culprit was. Yes, that's right - the weaker sex. Naughty Eve!
The Garden of Eden resembles Michael Jacksons' Neverland in some respects. A fun packed Peter Pan theme park where nobody ever dies, with fruit trees and talking animals; maybe even a chimp called Bubbles, but thankfully no surgically enhanced host or pre-teen sleepovers.
The daily activities of the Gardens' famous residents probably consisted of frolicking around naked, eating the freely available fruit and enjoying the air conditioned, unchallenging environment; kinda like an unending naturist holiday. Thank flip His Nibs had the foresight to include a couple of forbidden fruit trees to give the story a potential for some kind of interest or drama.
Adam and Eves' expulsion from the Garden is used to explain our present unsatisfactory world of work, pain, aging and death. I can see the merit of rationalising these things away in a fable as being an unwanted departure from some divinely ordained plan and not accepting that they are just the way things are and have always been.
The New Testament weaves the story of Jesus' gruesome human sacrifice into the picture as being an antidote to the Original Sin curse incurred by the actions of Adam & Eve. One problem I have with this rationale is:
If the sacrifice of Jesus released Man from the curse of Original Sin, then why did Christian believers not immediately revert to the Earthly immortality that Adam allegedly possessed? This seems to me, a logical outcome and would give the whole fable an unmistakeable ring of truth, as us skeptical types observed their Christian neighbours showing no sign of aging as we gradually became wrinklier and eventually croaked.
Removing the immortality reward to some non-evidential afterlife realm is unhelpful, and serves only to rack up the already sky high improbability factor.
A final thought:
The drama has played out and the faithful are living happily ever after in the new version of paradise in Heaven or on Earth (whichever it is) in an immortal Neverland with God, his angels and all that righteous palaver. Everyone is frolicking around naked again, throwing frisbees around and partaking of the freely available fruit + veg. (no meat allowed as that would entail killing something and dispelling the overwhelming aura of niceness)
God is watching all this and becoming increasingly more bored as his eyes flit from one naked frisbee playing merrymaker to another. He's starting to think about that pair of pesky forbidden fruit trees that he hung onto after the last debacle with this species took place..when was it... at least a coupla thousand years ago. He remembers he still has the trees in his own personal garden, ready to be deployed again should the need arise....
Bonk!
A frisbee strikes Gods' head, thrown by a corpulent male with a bald head and an annoyingly silly facial expression as he asks for the offending item to be thrown back.
Gods' brows knit into furrows of deep contemplation as he thinks again of his irresistable sin producing flora....
"Should I?...", he muses. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/19/2008 4:44:28 PM | God loves because he is love and love hopes and believes. He made man like him male and female sprit and body. He took the female portion of Adam out and made Eve. (Watch Yentel) Eve ate but nothing happend until Adam ate that was the end of that Man. From that point on they were two incompleate persons in compation one with the other for mastery. Jesus was the first to talk to women as equals and had paul who was raised believing that women should not speak and woke every mourning saying, "I am thankful I am not a woman." repent of this way of thinking as you read his writing you see him come about. He speaks of women being good workers then fellow laborers and finaly he makes the statement in Christ there is no male or female bond or free...
As for the long life that Adam had he had been eating of the tree of life freely and only after getting kicked out of Eden stop having its fruit.
And sorry but forlicking was not the purpose for Man and so will not be how we spend our immortal days. Our orders were to grow and manage the garden we have not even covered one plant with it yet. It is going to take 1k years just to get this place cleaned up and in control. | |
|
| |
| original sin
Posted: 7/19/2008 5:30:38 PM | A zombie is a person who is druged to the point of not having a heart beat and placed in a grave. After that the person does not have a free will or the ability to think on its own. That is why witchcraft is not allowed in the Bible. It is taking a persons God given right to choose and imposing your will over anothers. A true Christian will not take anothers right to choose away. Do not twist Christian and the wolves in sheep clothing together. A Christian does what Christ tells them to through the study of the Bible. The other says he is with Christ and works hard to bring down all that Christ builds and goes directly against his teachings.
God gave Adam and Eve the right to choose to obey Him and respect His position and property. They picked. We are born with a bend in our soul to be like mom and dad. Some of us like Uncle Cain. Until you reach and age that you are making chioces on your own free will you are not judged. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/19/2008 6:25:25 PM | A lot of what makes life interesting and us human would vanish if not for evil, wickedness, sin, whatever you wish to call it. All our great drama depends on murder, evil and conflict. Take away sin from drama and what are you left with? Something that would entertain an infant maybe. Is that what humans were conceived as in the garden of Eden - a race of Teletubbies fans? The paralysis of half of the yin/yang union by removing the dark component would be sanitising and diminishing the whole. Destroying it even. Sin is necessary and inevitable. If ever a state of goody-two-shoes complete sycophantic union with God is reached in a mythical hypothetical afterlife, I'm sure the deity will be compelled by sheer commonsense to launch another cycle of sin fuelled drama, just to rescue existence from the curse of eternal blandness.
| |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/19/2008 11:00:45 PM | Ray, I was reading about the original sin and came across your post and wanted to respond. The Old Testament is about relating to God through the law- the New Testament is about relating to God through grace. Saul who's name was changed to Paul ---well, I think that it was after the crusifiction that he became a believer. He had been against Christ and killing all the followers of Christ and thinking he was doing the right thing ...but then he had an experience with Jesus the risen Christ. It is still happening today .... people claim to have experiences with the risen Christ ..and are able to find the answer to the original sin problem.
If someone got AIDS it could spread to their spouse and to their unborn child and on and on into each generation causing death like sin does in this world....So many are born with AIDS it reminds me of the original sin because it is passed to new borns through the blood. I think that Christ's blood is like a transfusion of sorts to give new life and to cleanse a man from all sin. That is the way I think about it anyway. Take Care | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/19/2008 11:17:55 PM | If Eve was created so subservient --then how come she didn't do what Adam said ...
How come and why is it that she was the one who gave Adam the forbidden fruit ?
Why would he listen to her and also go so far as to eat the fruit??
It seems to me that Eve had a pretty equal relationship with Adam before the original
sin and that it is part of the curse of sin that women have been treated as less than. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/21/2008 12:25:41 AM | | Yes it is Patriarchy: revered as fathers or founders ruling a nation or country. ruling by venerable old men/ and or ecclisiastical dignitaries. Are we confused?...then we use the founders laws () as justifying rational for the oppression and continued dominance of minorities. Original sin: maybe opression? enslavement of other people and justifying the dominance through laws and rules in a book. I don't think any God I love would "curse" my humanity this way. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/21/2008 1:07:47 AM | Dear Kittenmamma, I read your treatise on how the Bible is used with fascination. I got the impression that for one who knows how to use the Book, it does not matter what passage he uses to read to answer a question at hand in his life, the Bible gives an answer, and you did not say it, but presumably the correct answer.
In the following text I use man in the sense of human; it can be a man, a woman, or a child. This way I aim to avoid the awkward use of currently fashionable third person plural for third person singular, and I aim to avoid the repetition of pronouns for masculine and feminine thrid person singular.
This, if it's true, it's fascinating. It means that the Bible teaches the same amorph message in any of its passages, of any length. A simple way of saying it would be that the believer finds the answer because he connects with God through reading the scripture. Another way of saying it, from an atheist's point of view, is that the Book is so constructed that any of its passages will morph into a basic solution, a solution which is not actually applicable to all problems or to any problem, but which transmits into the reader's mind and there, like some self-creating insight, will develop into the actual, practical, tangible soloution it needs to become to help the man in his thinking.
In a way I can see that the same message happens in Buddha's teaching, or whosever, who said "When the student's ready, the master will appear." This Bible-reading to find answers may benefit those who have a deeper insight into life, again, if one takes the atheistic point of view, which is mine. It can happen that a seemingly unrelated reasoning or story will give insight to a man about his decision to be made. The explanation may lie in not giving the questioner an answer, but giving him a starting point to think through his position and choices; he is simply jump-starting the process of think-through by reading something completely unrelated, and trying to relate that to his own question. By trying to relate the passage, he's activating his own analysis, and that helps him arrive at some sort of answer.
This, like I said, works for smart, insightful people. But I am also the first to admit that it works for the intellectually less fortunate. The dumber people get just as much of a jump-start there, the mechanisms that are put into place by opening the pages of the Bible work equally for all men, no matter how far they got with their education, how smart or dumb they are, and how much they believe in God or would love to but can't because God is a ridiculously self-contradictory thing, much too much more so than to believe in His existence. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/21/2008 1:31:14 AM | Christianity: The belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie will grant you immortality if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically ask him to be master of your life, for which he will remove a curse that was placed on mankind when a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magical tree.
Makes perfect sense.
As much as you accurately described the situation at hand, I still maintain you are bit confused.
Eve bit the apple. Yes. But it was Adam's apple. Adam's Adam's apple. They were necking. THIS is what caused the great anger of the Zombie. His plan was for them to eat the Snake's apple, because then the young couple would have gained knowledge. But no, they had to bite into each other. This is due to some stupidity on the young couple's part, which is understandable, since they had not eaten the fruit of knowledge.
Zombie became angry because He was a virgin, and He had never experienced the Joy of Sex before. For someone's sake, it got published six thousand years too late. But think about it: Zombie had existed for eternity, then in one week he made the world and man. Then right in front of His watchful eyes, this stupid snutty man with his stupid slutty girlfriend show Him what fun he'd been missing all those thousands and billions of years. The couple figured it out I think within a day or two what to do with each other, and they sort of got the idea right, the same idea that the omnipotent and omniscient Zombie had never got.
This would piss off even me, or anyone, really. I dare you to show me one somebody who'd existed since time infinite, and learned about sex only six thousand years ago, and still wouldn't be bitter about it.
Of course He fabricated the sin story, and has been punishing mankind ever sins. (I know how to spell.) He had to vent His anger somehow, and we're lucky He did not take our ability to have sex away. The grumpy old man that He is, He's still got some heart.
But I hope you see what for He a mean and jealous God is. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 7/22/2008 7:04:53 AM | Thanks for clearing that up for me. It all makes sense now. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 8/3/2008 10:55:05 AM | Thanks' to "Man of [many] words" for a thoughtful reply, which I will quote a big part of right now >
This, if it's true, it's fascinating. It means that the Bible teaches the same amorph message in any of its passages, of any length. A simple way of saying it would be that the believer finds the answer because he connects with God through reading the scripture. (snip) ... any of its passages will morph into a basic solution, a solution which is not actually applicable to all problems or to any problem, but which transmits into the reader's mind and there, like some self-creating insight, will develop into the actual, practical, tangible soloution it needs to become to help the man in his thinking.
Yup. This is one way people use the Bible. Think of it as a form of meditation. You pray for insight; you read the text; you meditate/think about it; you get some insight. Sometimes you don't get the insight right away, but days later. You might feel that there's something important about a particular word or piece of a passage, and then hear that word or story again several times in other situations. Consistency is one of the indicators that it may be God talking to you, and not just your ego or your personal desires of the moment.
In a way I can see that the same message happens in Buddha's teaching, or whosever, who said "When the student's ready, the master will appear." This Bible-reading to find answers may benefit those who have a deeper insight into life, again, if one takes the atheistic point of view, which is mine. It can happen that a seemingly unrelated reasoning or story will give insight to a man about his decision to be made. The explanation may lie in not giving the questioner an answer, but giving him a starting point to think through his position and choices; he is simply jump-starting the process of think-through by reading something completely unrelated, and trying to relate that to his own question. By trying to relate the passage, he's activating his own analysis, and that helps him arrive at some sort of answer.
Yes. One of my close friends is a Soto Zen Buddhist who became active in her practice about the same time as I did. Although sitting meditation is different from prayer, because you aren't trying to communicate with another person, you get a lot of the same kinds of insights about your life from it. One important difference I've found, though, is that God does sometimes give very clear instructions, whereas sitting, walking, and working meditation provides you with insights. As my friend says of Soto Zen, "You don't _have_ to do anything." It's just that once you have the insight you feel a bit of a tool if you don't follow through on it.  | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 8/3/2008 11:13:01 AM | Oh, and for anyone looking for a fuller statement of the theology of original sin, I would recommend the Catholic Encyclopedia. The old version of it is online, and has an extensive article on the topic. It's written from a Catholic perspective, but discusses and explains the objections to Catholic interpretation as well as pointing out where the teaching on original sin has wiggle room. In general, the Catholic Encyclopedia is almost always a good starting point if you want to know the history of a piece of Christian history, because the articles always go back to the origins of Christianity and the disputes about difficult matters of theology.
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia
You might be able to jump straight to the article:
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=8782 | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 8/3/2008 12:24:29 PM |
Zombie had existed for eternity, then in one week he made the world and man. Then right in front of His watchful eyes, this stupid snutty man with his stupid slutty girlfriend show Him what fun he'd been missing all those thousands and billions of years. The couple figured it out I think within a day or two what to do with each other, and they sort of got the idea right, the same idea that the omnipotent and omniscient Zombie had never got. I'm always amused when folks assume that God is against sex. Read the story. The very first thing that God says to the couple is "Be fruitful and multiply", i.e. "Have sex!" All evidence suggests that He created us with a darned good drive towards sex, even though some religions deny that.
I imagine that God, who I've always envisioned as having a great sense of humor, is sitting there laughing like mad to see the religious types solemly rail against sex, knowing that the way He made us, they must inevitably lose.
Of course He fabricated the sin story, and has been punishing mankind ever sins. (I know how to spell.) He had to vent His anger somehow, and we're lucky He did not take our ability to have sex away. The grumpy old man that He is, He's still got some heart. The sin story may well be fabricated, but not by God. Don't blame God for man's actions.
As mentioned, you may envision God as a grumpy old man. I see God rather differently, having an interesting time watching us. Sometimes amused, sometimes saddened. But we sure must be fascinating to observe. My assumption is that God takes the free-will business deadly seriously. Must have been part of the bargain somewhere along the line. | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 8/3/2008 4:37:18 PM | I like to quote my friends mom had in her kitchen.
God did not take woman from the foot to be stepped on
God did not take woman from the head of man to be worshiped
God took woman from the side of man to be his equal
I think I remembered it but It was HS and I'm a long way from HS
point being that the sin of being a thief and usurper was both does not matter who pointed at who. None of us get to be in the garden | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 8/3/2008 5:51:40 PM | If I had to put my finger on one of the things that greatly disturbed as a child, the idea that I was born a sinner or with a "black" mark on my heart, and that no matter how hard I tried to be good and fight the good fight, it would always be there, this would
be it.
And once I understood what it really meant...that it somehow represented MY share of the harm done against my Jesus...well...I can't even begin to explain how THAT made me feel.
People sometimes ask me if I'm bitter or angry at "the church" and if that's why I'm an atheist. And my answer is no...that's not why I'm an atheist. I'm an atheist because that's what feels true to me.
But go ahead and ask me why I'm also an anti-theist and there's days where I might spew venom just remembering what those stories did to my head. I never claimed to be perfect and this is something that I still have difficulty "forgiving"...ah well...to each their own crosses to bear eh? 
JMHO | |
|
| original sin
Posted: 8/5/2008 11:52:11 AM | Oldsoul, I am very sorry you had such bad experiences in church as a child, but, sadly, I am not surprised. I would l like to let you know that original sin is actually a pretty contentious teaching within Christianity, and that Judaism rejects it (for reasons some Christians also have rejected it). Anyone interested can find information about Jewish theology at Judaism 101:
http://www.jewfaq.org/index.htm
The Jewish virtual library explains why Judaism rejects original sin.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Original_Sin.html
The gold standard for basic information is the _Encyclopedia Judaica_, but it's not available online. It's 16 volumes, so you need to go to a library to use it. | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
