Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > original sin      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Kissnguy
Joined: 9/10/2007
Msg: 126
original sinPage 6 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

posted by:Bear45408
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


The reason religions are mostly against sex is because sex is religions greatest compitition for our attentions. They cant control us until they can first control our sexual proclivities. Thats why everything about sex is a sin.

Next...Now if "Mr. I can see a million years into the future" really wanted us to have great sex, he would have moved the females clitorus south a few more centimeters, and put a bone in the males Johnson Rod! Or at least designed it like an elephants trunk...2oo seperate muscle groups all working by instantanious command of the elephants brain. But noooooo, he has to come up with this bio-mechanical process involving a seperate plumbing system and an electrical system thats so complicated it's a wonder it works at all. Brain impulses, then Nitric oxide in the blood stream, valves closing, pressure points, and dont let even one negative thought hide anywhere in the back of the brain or the whole things a no show! But this is god I guess...why go with simple and efficiant when he can go with rediculously complicated.

Now all you have to do is go to google..type in Homologous sex organs, and SRY gene. Read all you can and piece it together for yourself. Once you understand how and why our sex organs form, you realize there cant POSSIBLY be a god behind this plan!
 VVendy
Joined: 6/7/2008
Msg: 127
original sin
Posted: 8/5/2008 6:44:24 PM
Original sin as I read it here is not the same as the one I read in the Bible. In the Bible you answer only for your self. If you are a child you are not guity your parents are. To make you sin is the aim of the system Adam and Eve set up on this Earth and we are born into the systm. The system breaks us down and turns us into less then what we were made to be, the image of God.
 Yellow44
Joined: 4/26/2006
Msg: 128
view profile
History
original sin
Posted: 8/6/2008 8:14:41 AM
This has nothing to do with trees or any kind of fruit, or physical death or even good or evil. In fact if we look at the actual root or history of the word 'sin' it really only means 'to miss the ark' or to miss the point. Which, could be said, everybody has done in this thread.

This is about awareness and experience of the divine nature of everything before our seperate self-sense attaches language, or judgement, to any experience and thus stopping our ability to directly experience the divine in that experience.

The best part of this is that this is an experiment that you can try for yourself, have this experience for yourself, and if you can make a habit of it, open yourself to an experience of undescribable love, to transform and to, know...

See this thread - http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts9397314.aspx
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 129
original sin
Posted: 8/6/2008 10:41:13 PM
Well original sin aside and maybe talk a little about the blessings we are offered be they from science, nature, God, where ever.... our human biological design came from. But if the sex idea were planned. It was because we do have desires and are able to communicate and talk ...This facilitates the big picture of well... intimacy. it makes more sense that one would commuicate their needs not just expect it to work out the first time. Then people may try to make relationships happen. two Posts fit nicley with this VVendy's about eve being taken from adam's rib to be equal and kisnggy concerns about bones and the placement of the clitoris. We express to our partners who have hands, brains and compassion for our needs and sex could be a wonderful sharing experience for both partners.
Becuase our infants and children take so many years to leave the fledgling stage we may have copulated and communicated a relationship of intimacy and trust to share the responsibilites of upbringing in some way shape or form. "Most" animals offspring leave the nest relativley quickly. Human children don't usually move on until 18 at least. i don't necessarily mean marriage to share responisibilites for children and sometimes not even sharing a household and i also don't believe that intimacy is only for people who are going to have children. So don't jump down my throat. Or point fingers at me. LOL. i am well aware that this is no garden of eden, However I sit down to a bountiful feast and count my blessings.i figure the big eye in the sky will count my transgressions. and i will just do my best.
 Ordieth
Joined: 2/12/2008
Msg: 130
original sin
Posted: 9/7/2008 7:36:00 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.]
lol
i think this is the best interpretation of christianity yet
 JoyfilledJoanie
Joined: 8/29/2008
Msg: 131
original sin
Posted: 9/7/2008 10:28:09 PM

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.]
lol
i think this is the best interpretation of christianity yet


4 errors in that...
1. Christ may be Jewish but he's not a zombie (zombies rot)
2. He doesn't grant immortality... we all have immortal souls already
3. It is our belief in the substatutionary sacrifice & attonement
4. The ground was cursed because of us - neither man nor woman were
cursed - they were told the consequences

The original sin was motivated by wanting to be like God. Still popular today that one, many people make 'gods' of their own intellect.

It is not that we are born sinners or as one poster described it, with a black mark on their heart... we are born spiritually separated from God. Eating that fruit caused Adam & Eve to die spiritually, and everyone born after them are born in the same condition - separate from God.

Jewish tradition states that children are not held responsible for keeping the law until 13 (12 for girls). The book of Mat says children have angels constantly before God.
 Skyliner1001
Joined: 5/26/2007
Msg: 132
view profile
History
original sin
Posted: 9/8/2008 6:12:02 AM
In message 131 JoyfilledJoanie said (abbreviated):
1. Christ may be Jewish but he's not a zombie (zombies rot)
2. He doesn't grant immortality... we all have immortal souls already"

1. The idea that "Christ is a zombie" comes from the belief he rose from the dead- just as a zombie is supposedly risen after death. Also, zombies are said to eat the flesh of humans, and Christians are supposed to take communion- a ritualistic and symbolic eating of the flesh of Jesus. I'm not supporting such ideas, just explaining them.

2. The words "immortal soul" are not found in the Bible. The idea that the soul is immortal is an idea introduced by the church. In Genesis we find that God states (paraphrased) "The day you eat of the Tree of Knowledge, you shall surely die." Since neither Adam nor Eve died physically, we can only conclude that it was their soul that died. Hence, humans no longer live forever, and risk permanent annhiliation. (Note that the verse does NOT say "...you shall surely die, then be raised up again, judged, and sent into eternal punishment and suffering if found unworthy,") Dead is dead. The hope that Jesus brings is that we can now gain everlasting life!

I liked her idea that "original sin" isn't a crime that can only be forgiven by a blood sacrifice, but is rather a "condition" that separates us from God.
 zoretta
Joined: 10/21/2007
Msg: 133
original sin
Posted: 9/8/2008 7:27:44 AM
“The words "immortal soul" are not found in the Bible. The idea that the soul is immortal is an idea introduced by the church.” What I got from the Genesis story is that the idea of the immortal soul was introduced by the serpent. From that day on, it seems to me, most people liked that idea better. The “church” just capitalized on it.

“In Genesis we find that God states (paraphrased) "The day you eat of the Tree of Knowledge, you shall surely die." Since neither Adam nor Eve died physically, we can only conclude that it was their soul that died...” Is this what you're saying the church says? Not sure if this is “your” opinion, or what you say is from the “church”. Since physical death IS a reality for all humans, I assume Adam & Eve DID die, so my “conclusion” is a little different.

According to the book of Genesis, "Adam was formed from the dust of the ground and God breathed into him the breath of life and Adam "became" a living soul ..."
This scripture has always been basic to my reasoning and faith. To me, it is pertinent that the word 'became' is from the verb of 'being' - not - a verb showing "possession". What I get from this is that - man did not 'have' a soul that was 'given' to him, or that could 'go' anywhere at death.

To me, original sin means mankind's 'imperfection' - which was brought about by Adam & Eve's disobedience.
 JoyfilledJoanie
Joined: 8/29/2008
Msg: 134
original sin
Posted: 9/8/2008 10:38:03 AM

2. The words "immortal soul" are not found in the Bible. The idea that the soul is immortal is an idea introduced by the church.


Although the exact words immortal soul may not be found the concept is certainly biblical and found in both the Old and New Testaments.
 Skyliner1001
Joined: 5/26/2007
Msg: 135
view profile
History
original sin
Posted: 9/8/2008 12:55:20 PM
In message 133 Zoretta said "What I got from the Genesis story is that the idea of the immortal soul was introduced by the serpent. From that day on, it seems to me, most people liked that idea better. The “church” just capitalized on it. "

>The serpent did not tell Adam and Eve that they would be immortal (nor their soul). Simply that they would know the difference between "Good" and "Evil" (Don't get me started on the subject as to how their decision could be a sin (wrong) insomuch as they couldn't tell the difference!)

I had stated that “In Genesis we find that God states (paraphrased) "The day you eat of the Tree of Knowledge, you shall surely die." Since neither Adam nor Eve died physically, we can only conclude that it was their soul that died.” and Zoretta asked if it was my opinion or that of the church.

Since the statement from God is that (paraphrased) "The day you eat of the tree of knowledge you shall surely die", and Eve did, in fact eat the fruit (later giving it to Adam) and they lived 900 years afterward, we can not interpret the verse literally. Either (1) God lied or (2) "the day" means "period of time" and not a 24 hour day or (3) it was their soul (which God had breathed into Adam) that died. I think the answer is #3

We could get into a long debate as to whether the soul is immortal or not. For every argument that can be presented that suggest the soul IS immortal another can be found to support the idea that it is NOT. It is the stuff religions are made of!
 romanticoptimist
Joined: 10/1/2007
Msg: 136
original sin
Posted: 9/8/2008 1:13:13 PM
Here's a thought (and it's just a thought): What if the expression "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" means that eating the fruit of the one tree forbidden them would bar them from eating the fruit of the Tree of (eternal) Life? It was also in the Garden, close to the forbidden tree (see Genesis 2:9 - both were in the middle of the Garden).

Genesis records that God barred them from the Garden to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life because then they would "live forever" implying that the fruit of that tree gave eternal life. See Genesis 3:22.

Therefore, "die" means "not live forever".
 zoretta
Joined: 10/21/2007
Msg: 137
original sin
Posted: 9/9/2008 8:35:29 AM
“...>The serpent did not tell Adam and Eve that they would be immortal (nor their soul). Simply that they would know the difference between "Good" and "Evil"...”

I think the serpent might have implied it by the following verse: ASV - Gen 3:4 “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.”

The concept of 'original sin' , I think, is part of the package wrapped in 'church' tradition. The 'sin' of Adam & Eve', whatever one might think that to be, was (is) used for control & manipulation.

From what I have read, the babtism of infants was based on superstitious beliefs - as a protection from demons. As I see it, babtism should be by choice. It is a declaration (public & formal, or internal & private) based on a 'mature' decision. It's about accepting Jesus Christ as one's savior and 'choosing' to commit to 'his' way. And, by choosing Jesus' way, you (generic) are choosing God's way. This is, what I get from NT scripture, the purpose of babtism.

Does it tie in with the choice Adam & Eve made? Somehow, someway, I think it does, because it WAS their choice, and God made it clear to them what the consequences would be. The 'effects' of that choice brings into play the concept of 'original sin' and 'its' effect on all those after Adam & Eve. There might be something to it....

This is the most difficult topic I have, so far, responded to. It brings up a lot of ideas, beliefs, and concepts that challenge my effort to stay on topic.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 138
view profile
History
original sin
Posted: 9/9/2008 8:57:04 AM
The way I was taught about original sin, in Orthodox Judaism, went like this:

Adam and Eve originally made decisions with their heads and their common sense. Sure, they liked eating tasty food, like chocolate, and pizza, but they didn't let it go to their heads, and eat lots of rubbish and not exercise. They used their brains to make decisions and not their emotions and feelings.

After the first sin, they realised that it was possible to make bad judgements based on their feelings, and having discovered this self-destructive power, they found it very, very tempting, and NOW found it very difficult to let their heads and common sense rule them, and not their emotions and their feelings, even though they knew that following their emotions and their feelings when their head and common sense was telling them not to, would be disastrous to them.

Their children grew up in such an environment, where it was difficult to let sense prevail over self-destructive emotions, and so found it far, far harder to do what was beneficial for them, and they hadn't known anything else. Their grandchildren, and all their descendants, suffered similarly.

That is what I was taught was "original sin". It is the ability to "sin", to be self-destructive by following fleeting emotions and feelings and NOT listening to your head and common sense, since the day you originated, the day you were born.
 Skyliner1001
Joined: 5/26/2007
Msg: 139
view profile
History
original sin
Posted: 9/10/2008 6:31:59 AM
In message 137 Zoretta repeats my comment and adds one of her own:
“...>The serpent did not tell Adam and Eve that they would be immortal (nor their soul). Simply that they would know the difference between "Good" and "Evil"...”

I think the serpent might have implied it by the following verse: ASV - Gen 3:4 “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.”

I sit corrected.

This brings up the point that if humans had the abilty to "surely die", then they were immortal at creation. After their disobedience, they became mortal and now all humans die. What, then, was the "Tree of Life" in the Garden for? Had A&E not eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, what would eating of the Tree of Life have done?

As to Baptism being a rite that grants forgiveness of original sin, both infants and adults can submit to the ritual. Adults do so by choice (Indeed, there are denominations of Christianity that insist that such practice is essential to salvation). Infants are subjected to the ceremony because their parents have made the decision for them. Whether God insists on Baptism (and then we get into the "sprinkling" and "dunking" debate) or not and if Baptism of babies influences the infant's chances of getting into heaven or not is the topic for another thread.
 consigliere31
Joined: 4/1/2008
Msg: 140
view profile
History
original sin
Posted: 9/10/2008 9:16:35 AM

This brings up the point that if humans had the abilty to "surely die", then they were immortal at creation. After their disobedience, they became mortal and now all humans die. What, then, was the "Tree of Life" in the Garden for? Had A&E not eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, what would eating of the Tree of Life have done?

As to Baptism being a rite that grants forgiveness of original sin, both infants and adults can submit to the ritual. Adults do so by choice (Indeed, there are denominations of Christianity that insist that such practice is essential to salvation). Infants are subjected to the ceremony because their parents have made the decision for them. Whether God insists on Baptism (and then we get into the "sprinkling" and "dunking" debate) or not and if Baptism of babies influences the infant's chances of getting into heaven or not is the topic for another thread.


IMO doctrines that teach heaven and hell all revolve around 'original sin' . The fact that a knowledge of good and evil is required to enter a heaven or be condemned to a hell is exactly the same doctrine that brought about the fall of Adam and Eve .

What should be noted is that without 'original sin' taking effect in the first place, mankind could not take the step that is required in the process of making man into the image of God. before Adam and Eve partook of the tree, they were yet to be in the image of God and be like God. Thier disobedience was a necessary requirement as a preliminary stage in God's ultimate plan.

Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

I don't see how this verse can be understood any way, other than Adam and Eve were not 'like God' before they disobeyed, and thier disobedience made them one step closer to becoming into the likeness of God.

When heaven and hell become a myth in your theology, then it will be seen that all of mankind is in the same boat...all have sinned and bore the penalty of Adam, and all shall be justified and bear the image of God that is demonstrated to the world in Christ. We will all be made into the image of the heavenly man (Jesus Christ), who is the image of God. And being made into this image of God is what many confuse as going to heaven when we die. We can call it whatever we like, but I see the transformation from this earthly realm and physical body of death, into a heavenly body as being the same as what others consider going to heaven......baptism or any requirments of knowing good and evil that religious doctrines yoke on thier followers have nothing to do with the tree of life, and everything to do with original sin and the requirements of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
 _Maloy_
Joined: 9/3/2008
Msg: 141
original sin
Posted: 9/10/2008 2:12:17 PM
If (big if, but whatever) the whole deal is about us having to find out the meaning of good and evil, then of course we are born off the mark. We are born with no preconceptions on the world we are being born into... At least not that I recall.

Now that is different than saying we are born evil, for if we are born evil, we would obviously already grasp (or at least have been influenced by) the concept.

I've yet to witness a new born with contempt in their eyes so it's easy for me to dismiss the notion.
 skypoetone
Joined: 3/24/2005
Msg: 142
original sin
Posted: 9/10/2008 4:27:35 PM

I've yet to witness a new born with contempt in their eyes so it's easy for me to dismiss the notion.

Good to have you back Stones....

Speaking as a grandparent here:

Hmm, some would say 'evil' is in the heart of the newborn... what a crock that is!
I truly feel sorry for such incredulity. Let us suppose that evil even exists, why would it be inbred? Original sin? It's a misconception of mind - NOT body!
Yeah Gods!
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > original sin