• 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

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Well, when you claim that deformed and cancer ridden children is evidence that newborns are sinful, it sure SOUNDS like you're saying that God thinks some children deserve to die of cancer.

So what did Adam do that made God decide that a child born without legs deserves to be born without legs? And why is an all powerful God incapable of creating this newborn whole? What about what Adam did forced God to make a limbless child? And doesn't the bible say something about the son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father? And if it isn't God who punishes a newborn for Adam's sin, who is it that does the punishing? Isn't God supposed to be the top dog?
Grief! You might as well ask, "why is there any suffering at all?"!

Simply put, in addition to the Serpent calling Jehovah God a liar, he also questioned God's right to tell A&E what to do. And when Adam joined Satan in his rebellion, Adam in effect refused God's rulership over him - Genesis 3:1-8. (And that was sin, which resulted in making their genetically perfect bodies, imperfect.)

Jehovah God has allowed humans full autonomy, ruling themselves. God has also removed His spirit, i.e., His power which imparts knowledge and protection, from the Earth itself (Isaiah 11:9). And He has let Satan influence mankind (Revelation 12:9), while He Himself has stayed out of human affairs for the most part.

The issue of sovereignty, i.e., can man rule himself or do we need God's rule, will soon be settled....but Jehovah would be defeating His side of the issue, if He stepped in every time there was an injustice!

This world's system, for now, is man's, not God's.
In fact, Jesus called Satan, "the ruler / prince of this world", not God.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member


Most people are taught that Adam and Eve were the first to commit the original sin against God.
But this is not true, The original sin was committed by Satan, Way before Adam and Eve came to be.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
There are two doctrines of original sin. The Augustinian "Manichean" one, which posits an evil, material world of darkness versus the good spiritual world of light, and the Pauline Armenian version that simply posits that all men have sinned where sin is in the world.

Both originate form the belief in ancient mythology in Genesis and are equally problematic. .
 

Trackdayguy

Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
Grief! You might as well ask, "why is there any suffering at all?"!

Simply put, in addition to the Serpent calling Jehovah God a liar, he also questioned God's right to tell A&E what to do. And when Adam joined Satan in his rebellion, Adam in effect refused God's rulership over him - Genesis 3:1-8. (And that was sin, which resulted in making their genetically perfect bodies, imperfect.)

Jehovah God has allowed humans full autonomy, ruling themselves. God has also removed His spirit, i.e., His power which imparts knowledge and protection, from the Earth itself (Isaiah 11:9). And He has let Satan influence mankind (Revelation 12:9), while He Himself has stayed out of human affairs for the most part.

The issue of sovereignty, i.e., can man rule himself or do we need God's rule, will soon be settled....but Jehovah would be defeating His side of the issue, if He stepped in every time there was an injustice!

This world's system, for now, is man's, not God's.
In fact, Jesus called Satan, "the ruler / prince of this world", not God.

That's pretty much what I used to believe. OUCH.....
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
Both originate form the belief in ancient mythology in Genesis and are equally problematic. .
Logically, there must have been a first person who communicated with God. Logically it is very probable that it was in the land of Sumer. Why are these ideas necessarily mythological?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Logically, there must have been a first person who communicated with God. Logically it is very probable that it was in the land of Sumer. Why are these ideas necessarily mythological?

This is not a logical chain of reasoning it is based on religious presuppositions; First, by the evidence the first humans are from Africa, not Sumer. Second, these stories are from mythology based on Babylonian, Ugarit, Sumarian, and Canaanite texts that evolved over time. Third, humans communicating with God or God(s) is not necessary based on the evidence.
 

Trackdayguy

Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
Logically, there must have been a first person who communicated with God. Logically it is very probable that it was in the land of Sumer. Why are these ideas necessarily mythological?

I think its now a pretty well established fact that Adam & Eve or who whoever you want to call them didn't originate from the same place. So why folks hang on to this myth is beyond me. In many ways I guess it much easier to keep believing what we've always believed even if science has proved that there is no way that the worlds population can come from just 2 people.

Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Certainly the Garden story in Genesis says no such thing. Nor does Jesus, but Paul mentions it once without putting any great emphasis on it. I seem to recall that the idea had had some currency in Alexandria from late in the 2nd century BCE; if that's right, it may be the origin of Paul's idea.

However, it doesn't take off as a big deal till Augustine of Hippo gets behind it around 400 CE.

As Ezekiel 18:20 says,

20 The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Apologies, I'm getting my Catholic made up words mixed up. I did of course mean Limbo.
Sorry, senior moment.:oops:
No worries, but I thought I had a monopoly on senior moments.:emojconfused:

BTW, "limbo" never was part of official Catholic dogma, even though I know some nuns used to teach it as if it was.
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
I think its now a pretty well established fact that Adam & Eve or who whoever you want to call them didn't originate from the same place. So why folks hang on to this myth is beyond me. In many ways I guess it much easier to keep believing what we've always believed even if science has proved that there is no way that the worlds population can come from just 2 people.

Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
You're overlooking the matter that the bible is the history of the people of God only. The bible does not say that every homosapiens came from Adam and Eve, where apart from Adam and Eve they could have been accounted as mere animals. "Beast" is a Jewish term for a human without a knowledge of God cf. "Wild beasts of Ephesus" 1 Corinthians 15:32.

So I take Adam and Eve as the first believers in God, and therefore the first true man and woman, but not the first homosapiens.
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
This is not a logical chain of reasoning it is based on religious presuppositions; First, by the evidence the first humans are from Africa, not Sumer. Second, these stories are from mythology based on Babylonian, Ugarit, Sumarian, and Canaanite texts that evolved over time. Third, humans communicating with God or God(s) is not necessary based on the evidence.
First, we are not talking about biological homosapiens with Adam and Eve. That much is clear, because they had the ability to make clothes. Second you have provided no evidence. Third I think that there is evidence of humans communicating with God, but may be not where you live.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
So I take Adam and Eve as the first believers in God, and therefore the first true man and woman, but not the first homosapiens.
Do you believe that it is possible that the Creation and Fall narratives might have been used as allegory, thus Adam & Eve, the names of which actually do have symbolic meanings, may not have existed as real people but are used to teach lessons?
 

Trackdayguy

Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
Do you believe that it is possible that the Creation and Fall narratives might have been used as allegory, thus Adam & Eve, the names of which actually do have symbolic meanings, may not have existed as real people but are used to teach lessons?

Yes, that is certainly what I believe
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Do you believe that it is possible that the Creation and Fall narratives might have been used as allegory, thus Adam & Eve, the names of which actually do have symbolic meanings, may not have existed as real people but are used to teach lessons?
That is what makes sense to me and seems to me to fit with the teaching of the main Christian denominations that Genesis should be seen as an allegory. The potential doctrinal bind comes later: what meaning to ascribe to the idea of the redemptive power of Christ's death on the cross, which is at the core of Christianity?

The simplistic, literalist view is that God demanded a blood sacrifice, in atonement for the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. Many people, myself included, find it absurd to conceive of a vengeful God insisting on His pound of flesh, to let humanity off the hook of being...well, just frail humanity. But for those who subscribe to this view of the Atonement, one seems to need an actual sinful act, a literal sin, to be atoned for. For which one needs a real, historical Adam and Eve.

If one take the allegorical view of Adam, Eve, however, one has then to see Original Sin differently, perhaps as I have outlined earlier, i.e. the inherent predisposition of humanity to do wrong, when it has the moral awareness not to. And then perhaps, the life and martyrdom of Christ becomes an example to us all of how we should live. This is the so-called "Moral Influence" theory of the Atonement, which is one of several, but as ancient and respectable as any of the others. More about the Atonement here: Atonement in Christianity - Wikipedia
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
That is what makes sense to me and seems to me to fit with the teaching of the main Christian denominations that Genesis should be seen as an allegory. The potential doctrinal bind comes later: what meaning to ascribe to the idea of the redemptive power of Christ's death on the cross, which is at the core of Christianity?

The simplistic, literalist view is that God demanded a blood sacrifice, in atonement for the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. Many people, myself included, find it absurd to conceive of a vengeful God insisting on His pound of flesh, to let humanity off the hook of being...well, just frail humanity. But for those who subscribe to this view of the Atonement, one seems to need an actual sinful act, a literal sin, to be atoned for. For which one needs a real, historical Adam and Eve.

If one take the allegorical view of Adam, Eve, however, one has then to see Original Sin differently, perhaps as I have outlined earlier, i.e. the inherent predisposition of humanity to do wrong, when it has the moral awareness not to. And then perhaps, the life and martyrdom of Christ becomes an example to us all of how we should live. This is the so-called "Moral Influence" theory of the Atonement, which is one of several, but as ancient and respectable as any of the others. More about the Atonement here: Atonement in Christianity - Wikipedia
Well said, imo, but let me just add that the concept of "original sin" was and is controversial, even within Catholic circles. It is not found within Judaism, for example, and it really defines logic if taken literally.

Therefore, many see it as being more or less symbolic of our propensity to sin as a byproduct of our free will. The issue of Jesus' "atonement" also doesn't make much sense at the literal level but can make sense symbolically.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Well said, imo, but let me just add that the concept of "original sin" was and is controversial, even within Catholic circles. It is not found within Judaism, for example, and it really defines logic if taken literally.

Therefore, many see it as being more or less symbolic of our propensity to sin as a byproduct of our free will. The issue of Jesus' "atonement" also doesn't make much sense at the literal level but can make sense symbolically.
Yes I think you and I see it in a very similar way, by the look of it. Perhaps because both of us appear to have some kind of liberal Catholic background. ;)
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
so....baptism removes original sin......
and Jesus submitted to the practice under the hand of John the Baptist

and when questioned by John.......Jesus replied....
Let this be so.

what do you think Jesus was doing?
 
Top