The Original Sin: who is to blame?

[dybmh]

every single time you see/hear an accusation, first ask if it actually applies to the one making it.

Right.

Here's your accusation. Did you ask yourself if it applies to the one making it?

Adam did not either recognize and/or acknowledge his own iniquity before attempting to implicate the woman as having caused it.

In this case, your thread is Adam and scripture is Eve.

Here's another accusation. Did you ask yourself if it applies to the one making it?

[HRC/DNC are making] political smears/assassinations, unfounded allegations etc.

This thread is "marked", flawed, and sloppy:

the ability to see the 'mark' of the Canaanite(s) by understanding whatever they are accusing others of, that is what they are trying to "hide" about themselves.

If you think the problem is "belief", If you think the problem is masculine dominance; that's what this thread is: dominant beliefs.

The OP is another example of masculine dominance.

 

[bobhikes]

Are so-called "holy" scriptures necessarily true because they are holy, or are (were?) they holy because they are necessarily (observably) true? Which way does it go? What actually gives scriptures the attention and regard adherents treat them with?

Putting these questions aside, picking up after Adam hearkens unto the voice of his wife and eats the fruit, what happens?

-Both their eyes are opened and they realize they are naked
-Adam hides from god in fear for shame of his nakedness
-God approaches and inquires as to the whereabouts of Adam
-Adam emerges explaining why he hid himself
-God asks if Adam ate the fruit that was forbidden to him

Now how does Adam reply?

Genesis 3:12
ויאמר האדם האשה אשר נתתה עמדי הוא נתנה לי מן העץ ואכל
And the man said The woman whom thou gavest to be with me she gave me of the tree and I did eat

In other words: Adam did not either recognize and/or acknowledge his own iniquity before attempting to implicate the woman as having caused it. Do we see any indication (ie. religions) with which such behavior is (institutionalized, and is) still on-going on the planet? Are men blaming/shaming women and implicating them as the reason for their own iniquities?

Even as a non-theist, the problem is simple: when the lower organ (ie. sex) rules over the higher organ (ie. brain) such that the latter is subject to (ie. only operates based on) the former (re: sex), this is the same as Eve giving the fruit to Adam. The story is not literal/historical; it is describing the "origin of sin" in a symbolic way using people as archetypes for the relationship the brain has to the sex organ (in any being).

What is most depressing is this story is literally at the beginning/heart of the entire Abrahamic trilogy: Judaism/Christianity/Islam all owing their very existence to it.

Islam obviously rejects the one-man-one-woman Edenic frame of reference entirely: holding a man himself having 11 wives in his life (9 at one time: what really is 'infidelity'?) as perfect and infallible: his own adherents being allowed up to 4. Where is it written from Adam's own rib was derived 4 Eve's? It is not - else it is impossible to establish peace and harmony if not a simple 1:1 balance between man and woman (not caring to be dragged into the war on gender minefield/battlefield: there are only two biological, immutable, organ-defined male-or-female humans).

This aside, that the Torah has at least 4-5 different authors is itself catastrophic for the entire Abrahamic pantheon: if there was no potent delivery of the Torah, the Abrahamic god (incl. Christianity and Islam) are rendered null. The same central "claim" at the basis of Judaism is the same central "claim" made by Islam: "we are in possession of the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god". There are only three options:

i. Only one is correct
ii. They are both wrong and false
iii. They are both (somehow) right

This is why 100's of millions of people are dead: "belief". The problem is as described in the first few chapters of Genesis (despite it being man-made) but even those who treat it as an authority are even more ridiculous for not giving it the attention it allegedly demands.

So who is to blame? Nobody: when one realizes there is nobody left to blame except for themselves (Adam's mistake) this is the opening of the eyes of Adam. What does one do... hide in fear? Or own up? That is the choice each has to own for themselves.

People who attempt to blame their own iniquities on others are the same thing as Canaanites: psychological projection (ie. tiller of own soil) who grows enmity, hatred, desire to spill blood and kills with the jaw of an animal. The envy of seeing other people not suffering (Abel) as much as they suffer (Cain) is where socialism comes from: making everyone else suffer as those who suffer themselves. Take the example:

The HRC/DNC attempt to pin Russia collusion on POTUS when in fact it was the HRC/DNC that colluded (while spying on Trump) is precisely how this Canaanite human sacrifice works and is embedded in Judeo-Islamic tribalism mentalities (ie. "believer" vs. "unbeliever" re: accepting Muhammad as a final messenger).

It is still going on everywhere: political smears/assassinations, unfounded allegations etc. However, there is a secret key (I call it the key of Solomon): the ability to see the 'mark' of the Canaanite(s) by understanding whatever they are accusing others of, that is what they are trying to "hide" about themselves.

Don't "believe" or take my word for these, but feel free to test them yourselves: every single time you see/hear an accusation, first ask if it actually applies to the one making it. You will see it for yourself - like clockwork. Chastity takes the energy from the lower organ into the brain and enhances perception, casting a discernible glow on objects and people such that this becomes more and more noticeable over time. It is probably related to the basis of Christianity re: chastity being a requirement, but Christians themselves don't even know/practice it anyways.

In my opinion the sin's of Adam, Eve and Cain and for that matter most sinner's is lying to God. God know's what you did and God gives to the chance to admit it freely and repent usually multiple times, your sin is not repenting which can only be done after admitting to it.

 

[Terry Sampson]

As a child-free (i.e. voluntarily non-breeding) adult, once an uncle to a goodly number of much younger nephews and nieces, and once a substitute teacher of at least 20 first- and second graders for about 6-months (all between the ages of 5 and 8), I remember a time during my late teens and early twenties when I genuinely believed that authority figures (parents, teachers, governing officials of all kinds) could accomplish far more by governing without rules for behavior. Now, late in life, I have no regrets about being nobody's parent or authority, and I occasionally wonder to myself what was going on in some folks' head when they voluntarily bred and produced children.

Among my other idle thoughts, I've imagined myself in a position to create a universe and I find myself hard-pressed when trying to decide whether I would want any living beings in it or not. Reason: once I let living beings into my universe, I'm confronted with two dilemmas: Should I give them the ability to reproduce or not? And should I give them rules or genetically install a "morality" function in them, or not? And how many should each being be allowed to reproduce, with or without help? And how many "do"s and "don't do"s should I give or install in each being?

I don't have answers to my questions, ... yet. But at this time, I'm inclined to think, whether I let my living beings reproduce on their own initiative or I populate my universe myself, I'm going to have to give or install at least one "do" and one "don't". What the "do" and the "don't" should be, I don't rightly know ... yet.

As I read Genesis 1:28, God announced two "do"s: (1) Knock yourselves out reproducing on your own initiative, and (2) Recognize that there's a "pecking-order". And He announced one "don't": (1) Don't eat from one particular tree.

I have no objection to anyone rejecting the story, and its claim that there was/is a supreme authority and that that authority came up with one, very odd "don't." Confessing that I have failed to comply with the "do", I add: if I had been there, I know me well enough to assure anyone silly enough to be giving me any attention, that I'd have been up in the tree and gorging my unrestrained self on its fruit. Furthermore, I'd be very surprised if none of you was up in the tree with me or picking up fruit off the ground, given a chance. Are we tainted by Adam and Eve's noncompliance? I think not. As I see it, noncompliance is not a disease, passed from one person to another by physical contact; I suspect that "noncompliance" is an inherent feature of human DNA, and the differences between us as individuals consists of whom each of us deems the top-dog authority and what each of us decides is a "do" or a "don't". So, what's that "Original Sin" stuff all about? IMHO, it's about the fact that, because we don't live in the Garden, each of us can be and tends to be creative in our noncompliance, and that we don't get to live in the Garden because the first couple there got themselves kicked out. Think you would have left that tree in Garden alone if you had been there? I think not, especially if you're not inclined to acknowledge a Garden-owner.

Tell me that you don't acknowledge anyone or thing as an authority outside of the Garden of Eden as you please, and that you don't have any "do"s or "don't"s. But fair warning: don't come around my neighborhood, you're liable to get hurt.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

None of it matters to me, for the simple reason that I find the very notion of "Original SIn" to be repulsive, in that it implies directly that guilt itself is heritable. This is probably one of the most heinous notions in any religion.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Its a foundational myth... why argue about it as if its history?

Do you think Romulus and Remus were suckled by a she wolf????

I didn't know Romulus and Remus were mentioned in the Bible! Your posts are so enlightening.

 

[blü 2]

Are so-called "holy" scriptures necessarily true because they are holy, or are (were?) they holy because they are necessarily (observably) true? Which way does it go? What actually gives scriptures the attention and regard adherents treat them with?

'Holy' is a status bestowed by humans, the 'putting aside' or dedicating something to the deity of their choice.

Putting these questions aside, picking up after Adam hearkens unto the voice of his wife and eats the fruit, what happens?

-Both their eyes are opened and they realize they are naked
-Adam hides from god in fear for shame of his nakedness
-God approaches and inquires as to the whereabouts of Adam
-Adam emerges explaining why he hid himself
-God asks if Adam ate the fruit that was forbidden to him

This is a nice point in the text: arguably God hadn't commanded Adam not to eat the fruit, [he]'d warned him not to eat the fruit, "you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it you shall die".

The serpent was right when he said, 'No, you won't die'. At no point does he lie or deceive. Where does that leave God, then? In the story, God's the tricky one, the one with concealed motives.

So it wasn't for eating the fruit that Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden. God sets out his motives clearly in 3:22: "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good from evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever' ─ therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden ..."

Nor, when you think about it, could either Eve or Adam have sinned, for the simple reason that they did NOT have knowledge of good and evil at the time each of them ate the fruit (only afterwards) hence were incapable of forming an intention to do wrong.

And the reason they didn't have that knowledge is because God had deliberately kept them in ignorance in order, as [he] plainly states, to protect his own position and authority.

So it's a story that reflects well on Eve and on the serpent ─ like Prometheus bringing fire, so they brought knowledge of Good and Evil to humans. Adam (instantly blaming Eve) comes out looking flaky, but God is the villain, the one with the self-serving motives.

(Note too that sin, original sin, the Fall of Man, are never mentioned, and 'death entering the world' is specifically ruled out by 3:22.)

 

[Ellen Brown]

It has been suggested we are created at the end of darkness and the beginning of light. The light is our potential within.

As such we must choose to reveal the light, or remain in darkness.

Regards Tony

Though I try not to worry too much about it, I feel there is an opposition in our existence. Some may call it yin/yang, or other things? In western culture we seem to blame satan for so many things. Perhaps blaming women from antiquity is simply giving place to this satan?

In Islam, hardship is often seen as the teaching of Allah SWT. Another way that some Islamics see things is that it is said that there are more women than men in Jahannam (Hell). And, in many places, especially Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to go out alone, being subjugated to men as being incompetent, when in reality her lack of safety is the fault of some bad men?

 

[9-18-1]

Right.

Here's your accusation. Did you ask yourself if it applies to the one making it?

Oh boy, here comes the Jew.

That's the point: not holding others to a scrutiny one does not hold to themselves. It is the same problem as a religion, such as Judaism, not holding itself to the same scrutiny it employs against others. This is the general pathology of Judeo-Islamic tribalism: accuse others to hide ones own iniquity. It is the same Canaanite notion of dumping the sins of the tribe onto another animal/being and killing them. This practice began with the Canaanite Jews and still continues today.

This is why Jews had to invent terms such as "antisemitism" to protect themselves from criticisms: they are otherwise unable to deal with them. Where do you think the Muhammadans got the idea (ie. "Islamophobia")?

Why do you think both Jews and Muslims both claim they are in possession of the perfect, unaltered word of god? History repeats itself? Same lies?

In this case, your thread is Adam and scripture is Eve.

They make a perfect pair, don't they?

Here's another accusation. Did you ask yourself if it applies to the one making it?

This thread is "marked", flawed, and sloppy:

This is more projection: your attachments to books/idols/"teachers" renders it as such in your Jewish view. Jews who can't stand criticisms (like Muhammadans) default to such rhetorical responses which reveals their own inner insecurities - like digging from the soil, yeah?

If you think the problem is "belief", If you think the problem is masculine dominance; that's what this thread is: dominant beliefs.

The OP is another example of masculine dominance.

The problem is "belief", yes.

The problem is not masculine dominance, or dominant "beliefs" (I don't "believe" anything, as much as you would like it to be so).

The Torah did not come from any god; it was not handed to a Hebrew Moses; the diacritics were not "revealed", they were added later which distorted the text (same thing happened to the Qur'an); Jews and Muslims are both identical in that they hold the same false worldview.

I would say I expected better from you, but I actually did not - about what I expected. Once I found the barrier, there was no point looking deeper - will always be the same barrier, as is the case with "belief".

 

[dianaiad]

......
This is why 100's of millions of people are dead: "belief". The problem is as described in the first few chapters of Genesis (despite it being man-made) but even those who treat it as an authority are even more ridiculous for not giving it the attention it allegedly demands.
...............

this one caught my eye. You are telling us that religious belief is the cause of hundreds of millions of deaths. Your entire post seems, to me, to be a condemnation of religious mythology: an all inclusive criticism of how such creation myths are about sexual inequality and control.

If I'm wrong about this, please correct me, but that is what I gleaned from it.

I have just one comment: people/leaders who are anti-theists and who wanted to eliminate religion altogether were responsible for more deaths in the first six decades of the twentieth century than theists were in the previous two thousand years. Consider the millions upon millions of deaths that Mao and Stalin were responsible for. According to most historians, the two leaders between them were responsible for nearly a hundred million deaths all by themselves.

I get a little exercised over this. I'm sorry, but whenever I see someone start going after religions, whether it's Abrahamic or any other sort, as if the creation myths and beliefs involved are responsible for '100's of millions' of deaths, I get annoyed. it's not the religion. It's not the creation myths. It's just....people.

As for creation myths, every culture has them. Some are more grounded in 'science' than others, but until we have absolute proof of 'how we came to be,' then it's all mythology.

And that is NOT a bad thing. Indeed, all mythology is true, even if it's not fact.

 

[Firemorphic]

That's the point: not holding others to a scrutiny one does not hold to themselves.

Interesting that isn't it!

This is why Jews had to invent terms such as "antisemitism" to protect themselves from criticisms: they are otherwise unable to deal with them. Where do you think the Muhammadans got the idea (ie. "Islamophobia")?

No, you don't understand what both those words mean if you think they exist to escape criticism (which is very much a out-in-the-open thing in the 21st century).

The problem is "belief", yes.

Well you're the one sharing all your beliefs, opinions and speculative ideas here, I'm not gonna judge you for that but you have a rather self-defeating position there.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Though I try not to worry too much about it, I feel there is an opposition in our existence. Some may call it yin/yang, or other things? In western culture we seem to blame satan for so many things. Perhaps blaming women from antiquity is simply giving place to this satan?

In Islam, hardship is often seen as the teaching of Allah SWT. Another way that some Islamics see things is that it is said that there are more women than men in Jahannam (Hell). And, in many places, especially Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to go out alone, being subjugated to men as being incompetent, when in reality her lack of safety is the fault of some bad men?

I think when we stop blaming an outside source on our own choices, we can finally do something about changing ourselves.

Women have been dealt a hard blow from men in a male dominated mind.

Tahirih was responsible for removing that veil from our eyes. She is an amazing woman and up there with all the great and wonderful women of faith.

Táhirih - Wikipedia

I look forward to the day when our equality in God is realized.

Regards Tony

 

[dybmh]

Oh boy, here comes the Jew.

Hate speech....

And it's ad hominem:

"Ad Hominem is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

 

[shunyadragon]

No one is to blame, and we would not be human without it. It makes life interesting and human.

The 'Original Sin' was when humans first became human, and were capable of action good and bad beyond our simple natural behavior we inherited through natural evolution.

 

[sooda]

I didn't know Romulus and Remus were mentioned in the Bible! Your posts are so enlightening.

In context I was writing about "foundational myths".

 

[shunyadragon]

In context I was writing about "foundational myths".

The logic of the justification of the myths of the 'Fall' and the 'Original Sin' originated around more ancient (Sumerian) Creation stories to explain why a perfect Creation by God was flawed blaming the fault of fallible humans and snakes. Sort of a 'scapegoat' scenario.

 

[sooda]

The logic of the justification of the myths of the 'Fall' and the 'Original Sin' originated around more ancient (Sumerian) Creation stories to explain why a perfect Creation by God was flawed blaming the fault of fallible humans. Sort of a 'scapegoat' scenario.

Yes.. I think so.

 

[mistoftime]

God is to blame for all wrongdoing in the world as it is supposed to have created human nature.

 

[ecco]

I have just one comment: people/leaders who are anti-theists and who wanted to eliminate religion altogether were responsible for more deaths in the first six decades of the twentieth century than theists were in the previous two thousand years. Consider the millions upon millions of deaths that Mao and Stalin were responsible for. According to most historians, the two leaders between them were responsible for nearly a hundred million deaths all by themselves.

The difference, as I'm sure you have been told repeatedly, is that neither Mao nor Stalin killed people "in the name of atheism".

How Many People Did Stalin Kill?How Many Have Been Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism?
None, probably. Millions died in Russia and China under communist governments which were both secular and atheistic. This doesn't mean, though, that all those people killed because of atheism — even in the name of atheism and secularism. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system for which people fight, die, or kill. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness. Communists Don't Kill in the Name of Atheism...
​

However, in terms of the OP and original sin, if we are to believe in the biblical concept of original sin, then we must accept that god horrifically drowned almost every human and animal on the entire earth. That makes god the greatest mass murderer by far.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Are so-called "holy" scriptures necessarily true because they are holy, or are (were?) they holy because they are necessarily (observably) true? Which way does it go? What actually gives scriptures the attention and regard adherents treat them with?

Putting these questions aside, picking up after Adam hearkens unto the voice of his wife and eats the fruit, what happens?

-Both their eyes are opened and they realize they are naked
-Adam hides from god in fear for shame of his nakedness
-God approaches and inquires as to the whereabouts of Adam
-Adam emerges explaining why he hid himself
-God asks if Adam ate the fruit that was forbidden to him

Now how does Adam reply?

Genesis 3:12
ויאמר האדם האשה אשר נתתה עמדי הוא נתנה לי מן העץ ואכל
And the man said The woman whom thou gavest to be with me she gave me of the tree and I did eat

In other words: Adam did not either recognize and/or acknowledge his own iniquity before attempting to implicate the woman as having caused it. Do we see any indication (ie. religions) with which such behavior is (institutionalized, and is) still on-going on the planet? Are men blaming/shaming women and implicating them as the reason for their own iniquities?

Even as a non-theist, the problem is simple: when the lower organ (ie. sex) rules over the higher organ (ie. brain) such that the latter is subject to (ie. only operates based on) the former (re: sex), this is the same as Eve giving the fruit to Adam. The story is not literal/historical; it is describing the "origin of sin" in a symbolic way using people as archetypes for the relationship the brain has to the sex organ (in any being).

What is most depressing is this story is literally at the beginning/heart of the entire Abrahamic trilogy: Judaism/Christianity/Islam all owing their very existence to it.

Islam obviously rejects the one-man-one-woman Edenic frame of reference entirely: holding a man himself having 11 wives in his life (9 at one time: what really is 'infidelity'?) as perfect and infallible: his own adherents being allowed up to 4. Where is it written from Adam's own rib was derived 4 Eve's? It is not - else it is impossible to establish peace and harmony if not a simple 1:1 balance between man and woman (not caring to be dragged into the war on gender minefield/battlefield: there are only two biological, immutable, organ-defined male-or-female humans).

This aside, that the Torah has at least 4-5 different authors is itself catastrophic for the entire Abrahamic pantheon: if there was no potent delivery of the Torah, the Abrahamic god (incl. Christianity and Islam) are rendered null. The same central "claim" at the basis of Judaism is the same central "claim" made by Islam: "we are in possession of the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god". There are only three options:

i. Only one is correct
ii. They are both wrong and false
iii. They are both (somehow) right

This is why 100's of millions of people are dead: "belief". The problem is as described in the first few chapters of Genesis (despite it being man-made) but even those who treat it as an authority are even more ridiculous for not giving it the attention it allegedly demands.

So who is to blame? Nobody: when one realizes there is nobody left to blame except for themselves (Adam's mistake) this is the opening of the eyes of Adam. What does one do... hide in fear? Or own up? That is the choice each has to own for themselves.

People who attempt to blame their own iniquities on others are the same thing as Canaanites: psychological projection (ie. tiller of own soil) who grows enmity, hatred, desire to spill blood and kills with the jaw of an animal. The envy of seeing other people not suffering (Abel) as much as they suffer (Cain) is where socialism comes from: making everyone else suffer as those who suffer themselves. Take the example:

The HRC/DNC attempt to pin Russia collusion on POTUS when in fact it was the HRC/DNC that colluded (while spying on Trump) is precisely how this Canaanite human sacrifice works and is embedded in Judeo-Islamic tribalism mentalities (ie. "believer" vs. "unbeliever" re: accepting Muhammad as a final messenger).

It is still going on everywhere: political smears/assassinations, unfounded allegations etc. However, there is a secret key (I call it the key of Solomon): the ability to see the 'mark' of the Canaanite(s) by understanding whatever they are accusing others of, that is what they are trying to "hide" about themselves.

Don't "believe" or take my word for these, but feel free to test them yourselves: every single time you see/hear an accusation, first ask if it actually applies to the one making it. You will see it for yourself - like clockwork. Chastity takes the energy from the lower organ into the brain and enhances perception, casting a discernible glow on objects and people such that this becomes more and more noticeable over time. It is probably related to the basis of Christianity re: chastity being a requirement, but Christians themselves don't even know/practice it anyways.

Adam and Eve did not commit the original sin.
It was Lucifer who God change his name to Satan the devil that committed the original sin back in the first earth age.

 

[sooda]

Adam and Eve did not commit the original sin.
It was Lucifer who God change his name to Satan the devil that committed the original sin back in the first earth age.

No.. Inherited or generational or original sin is on Adam and Eve,.

Remember God punished Canaan for his father's sin against Noah. If that's not inherited sin I don't know what it.