• 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!

The Original Sin: who is to blame?

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
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.

That's a cop out. Whether one uses the words 'in the name of atheism,' or 'in the name of the father/motherland" or 'in the name of rationality' or 'because theism and religion are bad and we need to be rid of it,' it is the same thing. They are killing in order to further their cause...which is anti-theism, which is one subset of atheism. Doing it 'in the name of atheism," whether the actual words are used or not.

When an atheistic leader targets religion, then, just as EVERY death caused by a theist leader is attributed to his theism 'doing it in the name of God," then EVERY death caused by an anti-theist leader is done 'in the name of' atheism, because that's what it is.

When a leader rearranges his culture to make it more to his liking...and that 'liking' includes an absence of theism and theists, then...

you figure it out.
 

Baroodi

Active Member
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.


According to Quran ( And Adam disobeyed his Lord and did wrong). The blame went to Adam (peace be upon him). Mother Eve was not mentioned as wrong doer. In Quran those who commit sins are to be blamed while those who exhort others to do a good action and the action was done by someone, those callers will get a divine reward in the same amount as the action doer. Likewise encouraging doing sins leads to incriminate both the encourager and the doer in same footing. Sins committed purely by one person, all punishment goes to this person only.

goes ti him only.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
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.


As to who said anything about inherited sin.
As I said the original sin did not come by Adam and Eve.
But by Lucifer alas Satan back in the first earth age.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
As to who said anything about inherited sin.
As I said the original sin did not come by Adam and Eve.
But by Lucifer alas Satan back in the first earth age.

Inherited sin is the same as original sin is the same as generational sin.

The snake didn't sin. Why do you think he was "satan"?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
@Faithofchristian

excerpt:

In 2 Samuel 11–12, King David covets another man’s wife, takes her, and later kills the husband when the woman becomes pregnant. According to the story, the patron god, Yahweh, is angry, but not because David has raped and murdered (Noll 1999, pp. 35–6).

Yahweh expresses disgust that David has taken the wrong man’s wife, for he, Yahweh, is eager to give David the wives of other men if David desires them (12:7b–8).

As punishment for David’s sin, the woman’s child shall die and another man shall rape several of David’s other wives (12:9–14).

The moral values of Canaanite culture are clearly on display in this tale: the divine patron punishes a man by killing a child and orchestrating the rape of other women.

The divine patron protects the property of males by violating or destroying the property of other males. Religious morality is a by-product of social prejudices.

Canaanite Religion | K. L. Noll
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Inherited sin is the same as original sin is the same as generational sin.

The snake didn't sin. Why do you think he was "satan"?

Inherited sin is not the same as the original sin.
A snake is also called a serpent, thereby Satan is the serpent.

Satan's original name was Lucifer.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
@Faithofchristian

excerpt:

In 2 Samuel 11–12, King David covets another man’s wife, takes her, and later kills the husband when the woman becomes pregnant. According to the story, the patron god, Yahweh, is angry, but not because David has raped and murdered (Noll 1999, pp. 35–6).

Yahweh expresses disgust that David has taken the wrong man’s wife, for he, Yahweh, is eager to give David the wives of other men if David desires them (12:7b–8).

As punishment for David’s sin, the woman’s child shall die and another man shall rape several of David’s other wives (12:9–14).

The moral values of Canaanite culture are clearly on display in this tale: the divine patron punishes a man by killing a child and orchestrating the rape of other women.

The divine patron protects the property of males by violating or destroying the property of other males. Religious morality is a by-product of social prejudices.

Canaanite Religion | K. L. Noll

It seems that you quote alot of things, but never got around to why God was displeased with king David.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Inherited sin is not the same as the original sin.
A snake is also called a serpent, thereby Satan is the serpent.

Satan's original name was Lucifer.

Snake cults (fertility, wisdom and new life) were popular all over the ME, Egypt, the Levant, Arabia and the Indus Valley long before Genesis.

The belief that the snake was Satan is not in Genesis 3; it's a later belief that has been read back to give a meaning to the story that wasn't originally there.

It seems to stem from Revelation, with the identification of the Dragon (Yam from Canaanite myth and earlier Tiamat from Sumerian myth) with Satan and the Serpent from Eden, which seems contrived. They were originally different myths

The following extract from J R Porter's Guide To The Bible might be interesting; he's Professor Emeritus of Theology, University of Exeter:

The serpent in Genesis 3 is an ambiguous creature. In one respect, it is simply the snake, one of the animals made by God, and its physical characteristics and behaviour are explained in Genesis 3:14-15.

Here, in accordance with folk tales, the serpent is represented as a cunning creature that causes trouble and is punished. It can also speak.

However, the serpent in Eden probably also represents a demythologised version of what was once a much more significant being.

Archaeologists have revealed that the serpent was widely venerated in Egypt and the Near East, not least in Canaan.

There was also at one time a cult of the serpent in Israel, as demonstrated by the bronze serpent that is reported in the Bible to have once stood in the Temple at Jerusalem.

This serpent was destroyed by King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:4). The serpent was seen as the bringer of life, because it was able to shed and renew its skin annually: according to the Mesopotamian epic of Gilgamesh, it acquired this ability through eating the magical plant of immortality. The creature was particularly associated with fertility, and fertility goddesses are often shown accompanied by serpents.

It has been suggested that "Eve", the name of the first woman in the biblical account, is related to a word for snake, and that she was originally a serpent goddess of life and fertility.

In ancient tradition, the serpent is also a more sinister being that is associated with the underworld and its waters. In the Bible and elsewhere, the hostile monster that embodies primal chaos is frequently described as a serpent.

When the author of Revelation identified "that ancient serpent" with the Devil or Satan (Revelation 12:9), he established this manifestation of the serpent as the enemy of God.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Snake cults (fertility, wisdom and new life) were popular all over the ME, Egypt, the Levant, Arabia and the Indus Valley long before Genesis.

The belief that the snake was Satan is not in Genesis 3; it's a later belief that has been read back to give a meaning to the story that wasn't originally there.

It seems to stem from Revelation, with the identification of the Dragon (Yam from Canaanite myth and earlier Tiamat from Sumerian myth) with Satan and the Serpent from Eden, which seems contrived. They were originally different myths

The following extract from J R Porter's Guide To The Bible might be interesting; he's Professor Emeritus of Theology, University of Exeter:

The serpent in Genesis 3 is an ambiguous creature. In one respect, it is simply the snake, one of the animals made by God, and its physical characteristics and behaviour are explained in Genesis 3:14-15.

Here, in accordance with folk tales, the serpent is represented as a cunning creature that causes trouble and is punished. It can also speak.

However, the serpent in Eden probably also represents a demythologised version of what was once a much more significant being.

Archaeologists have revealed that the serpent was widely venerated in Egypt and the Near East, not least in Canaan.

There was also at one time a cult of the serpent in Israel, as demonstrated by the bronze serpent that is reported in the Bible to have once stood in the Temple at Jerusalem.

This serpent was destroyed by King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:4). The serpent was seen as the bringer of life, because it was able to shed and renew its skin annually: according to the Mesopotamian epic of Gilgamesh, it acquired this ability through eating the magical plant of immortality. The creature was particularly associated with fertility, and fertility goddesses are often shown accompanied by serpents.

It has been suggested that "Eve", the name of the first woman in the biblical account, is related to a word for snake, and that she was originally a serpent goddess of life and fertility.

In ancient tradition, the serpent is also a more sinister being that is associated with the underworld and its waters. In the Bible and elsewhere, the hostile monster that embodies primal chaos is frequently described as a serpent.

When the author of Revelation identified "that ancient serpent" with the Devil or Satan (Revelation 12:9), he established this manifestation of the serpent as the enemy of God.

Well it's evidence that you have no idea who the Author of the book of Revelation is

It's seems that you make a long speech, when it quite obvious that you still do not know that serpent is Satan the devil.
 

9-18-1

Active Member
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

You self-identify as a Jew, it's not hate speech, unless you hate yourself?

Please do not project - as I stated earlier, I found this the barrier already and the one who is in enmity will always start tilling their own soil. I don't have enmity for you, Jews or anyone else, but there are certain precepts in Judaism that, when adopted (by Jews) they can't see past them.

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.

This "scapegoat" scenario is extremely interesting because that is exactly what developed in Canaan: the sins of the tribe were exported onto a single animal/person and killed, absolving everyone of their own wrongdoing.

Sort of like what is happening against Trump re: spying, collusion etc. All came from Democrats.

This scapegoating really is a "thing" and pretty much is the basis of Islam: Jews Jews Jews etc. despite the Jews having been constantly persecuted by Muhammad who... blamed Jews for everything.

See where this leads? Islam/Muhammad carries not only original sin in it (ie. man blaming woman for his own iniquity /scapegoating) but develops the Canaanite scapegoating / human sacrifice worldview of projecting ones own characteristics outwards and condemning others for them.

That is what Islam/Left do to the Right - blame the other for their own iniquity. See Trump collusion actually being HRC.

The similarly backwards people might have a harder time seeing this because they sometimes can't see past their own enmity for the same.

This is why understanding is the first conduit: binah->chokmah->keser, which is equivalent to life->way->truth. Christians take Jesus to be that... which is idol worship. Truth way and life is not a person, but a process.

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.

This is more scapegoating: Lucifer is the light carrier and is not evil/good, it is neutral. It is the same as the sexual energy -can be acted upon for good or for evil. Satan is when the latter is chosen over the former, rendering each as (having) their own particular Satanic binds:

upload_2019-4-16_20-30-9.jpeg


According to Quran ( And Adam disobeyed his Lord and did wrong). The blame went to Adam (peace be upon him). Mother Eve was not mentioned as wrong doer. In Quran those who commit sins are to be blamed while those who exhort others to do a good action and the action was done by someone, those callers will get a divine reward in the same amount as the action doer. Likewise encouraging doing sins leads to incriminate both the encourager and the doer in same footing. Sins committed purely by one person, all punishment goes to this person only.

goes ti him only.

The Qur'an is forged from Christian strophic hymns and apocrypha scattered about reflecting the heretical worldviews.

The book of Moses clearly indicates that Eve was punished for what she did via. pain in child bearing (ie. menstrual pain) and women are regarded as unclean in Islam when menstruating.

The entire Islamic understanding of these earlier myths is exactly what the problem is, not the solution. For example Abraham being thrown into a fire is actually a mistranslation of the word 'ur' (of Chaldees) which meant 'city' in. Whoever translated this word for the Qur'an assumed 'fire' instead and Abraham was thrown into a fire, which never happened neither is it written.

The Qur'an contains numerous such errors.

Inherited sin is the same as original sin is the same as generational sin.

The snake didn't sin. Why do you think he was "satan"?

Good point - the snake did not sin (it can not). It is neutral, as is God. The polarity of good/evil begins at choice, and Adam chose to blame the woman for his own iniquity, causing the fall.

But people who act similarly (ie. scapegoat) will never understand this neither reverse (their own) as this is the only system that would make original sin universally "fair" - each has their own original sin(s) they have to reverse, which is why I read the teachings attributed to Jesus who mentioned chastity as being fundamental. This control over the sexual energy is precisely why Jesus stated Satan has no hold over him... once you understand how it works, it can not bind you. I am not saying this is true for me, but it is what I work towards.

Inherited sin is not the same as the original sin.
A snake is also called a serpent, thereby Satan is the serpent.

Satan's original name was Lucifer.

Satan is not the serpent; Lucifer can become Satan if man chooses to eat/fall.

I would say there is no such thing as 'inherited' sin outside of what one has incurred themselves in previous incarnations. I feel this has something to do why after the Exodus (mythologically speaking, not literally/historically) God says he visits the iniquities of the 3rd/4th generations of those that oppose him. In other words, if binds (Satan) carry on for successive generations without being dealt with internally... there is a natural process that begins to occur.

I don't ascribe this to a potent God, but rather just something that happens and people in the past have interpreted to have been the handy work of "God". Fundamentally the same is true: each owns their own fall (therefor, rise).
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
2 Samuel 12:7-8 New International Version (NIV)
7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man!A)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-8294A"> This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointedB)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-8294B"> youC)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-8294C"> king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you,D)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-8295D"> and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

Seeing how you left out verse 9.
Here you will find that king David despised the commandment of God.
Which was king David's first big mistake above everything else.

2 Samuel 12:9---"Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon"
 

sooda

Veteran Member
You self-identify as a Jew, it's not hate speech, unless you hate yourself?

Please do not project - as I stated earlier, I found this the barrier already and the one who is in enmity will always start tilling their own soil. I don't have enmity for you, Jews or anyone else, but there are certain precepts in Judaism that, when adopted (by Jews) they can't see past them.



This "scapegoat" scenario is extremely interesting because that is exactly what developed in Canaan: the sins of the tribe were exported onto a single animal/person and killed, absolving everyone of their own wrongdoing.

Sort of like what is happening against Trump re: spying, collusion etc. All came from Democrats.

This scapegoating really is a "thing" and pretty much is the basis of Islam: Jews Jews Jews etc. despite the Jews having been constantly persecuted by Muhammad who... blamed Jews for everything.

See where this leads? Islam/Muhammad carries not only original sin in it (ie. man blaming woman for his own iniquity /scapegoating) but develops the Canaanite scapegoating / human sacrifice worldview of projecting ones own characteristics outwards and condemning others for them.

That is what Islam/Left do to the Right - blame the other for their own iniquity. See Trump collusion actually being HRC.

The similarly backwards people might have a harder time seeing this because they sometimes can't see past their own enmity for the same.

This is why understanding is the first conduit: binah->chokmah->keser, which is equivalent to life->way->truth. Christians take Jesus to be that... which is idol worship. Truth way and life is not a person, but a process.



This is more scapegoating: Lucifer is the light carrier and is not evil/good, it is neutral. It is the same as the sexual energy -can be acted upon for good or for evil. Satan is when the latter is chosen over the former, rendering each as (having) their own particular Satanic binds:

View attachment 28323



The Qur'an is forged from Christian strophic hymns and apocrypha scattered about reflecting the heretical worldviews.

The book of Moses clearly indicates that Eve was punished for what she did via. pain in child bearing (ie. menstrual pain) and women are regarded as unclean in Islam when menstruating.

The entire Islamic understanding of these earlier myths is exactly what the problem is, not the solution. For example Abraham being thrown into a fire is actually a mistranslation of the word 'ur' (of Chaldees) which meant 'city' in. Whoever translated this word for the Qur'an assumed 'fire' instead and Abraham was thrown into a fire, which never happened neither is it written.

The Qur'an contains numerous such errors.



Good point - the snake did not sin (it can not). It is neutral, as is God. The polarity of good/evil begins at choice, and Adam chose to blame the woman for his own iniquity, causing the fall.

But people who act similarly (ie. scapegoat) will never understand this neither reverse (their own) as this is the only system that would make original sin universally "fair" - each has their own original sin(s) they have to reverse, which is why I read the teachings attributed to Jesus who mentioned chastity as being fundamental. This control over the sexual energy is precisely why Jesus stated Satan has no hold over him... once you understand how it works, it can not bind you. I am not saying this is true for me, but it is what I work towards.



Satan is not the serpent; Lucifer can become Satan if man chooses to eat/fall.

I would say there is no such thing as 'inherited' sin outside of what one has incurred themselves in previous incarnations. I feel this has something to do why after the Exodus (mythologically speaking, not literally/historically) God says he visits the iniquities of the 3rd/4th generations of those that oppose him. In other words, if binds (Satan) carry on for successive generations without being dealt with internally... there is a natural process that begins to occur.

I don't ascribe this to a potent God, but rather just something that happens and people in the past have interpreted to have been the handy work of "God". Fundamentally the same is true: each owns their own fall (therefor, rise).

Wasn't Azazzel the scapegoat?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Seeing how you left out verse 9.
Here you will find that king David despised the commandment of God.
Which was king David's first big mistake above everything else.

2 Samuel 12:9---"Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon"

So it was about Baathsheba and her husband after all.

Or this:

And David was displeased, because the LORD had made a breach upon Uzza: wherefore that place is called Perezuzza to this day.

or this:
God disciplined David after taking a census in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Makes perfect sense.. You just validated the argument that God didn't care about the adultery or murder.. Did you read any of this thread?

God did care, but what king David did in his despise the commandment of God's,
is what lead king David to do what he did.

Had king David kept focus on the commandment of God
King David would not have done what he did.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Top