The "Original Sin"

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Assuming the Adam and Eve story is true, why would God create beings with no knowledge of right and wrong and then command them not to do something? How would they know that the commission of the "Original Sin" was wrong if they had had no knowledge of right and wrong? And why did God hold them accountable for their "sin" if he knew that they had no idea it was wrong?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

IF we make the hefty assumption that the story of Adam and Eve is true, why would we question everything else?

We would have no logical basis to question the rest of the story.

The simple answer is: God did it and God is still holy and righteous.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

IF we make the hefty assumption that the story of Adam and Eve is true, why would we question everything else?

We would have no logical basis to question the rest of the story.

The simple answer is: God did it and God is still holy and righteous.

I'm not questioning the story itself, I'm questioning the reasoning of God in the story. What possible reason would he have to punish his creation that had no knowledge of right and wrong?

 

[bobhikes]

Assuming the Adam and Eve story is true, why would God create beings with no knowledge of right and wrong and then command them not to do something? How would they know that the commission of the "Original Sin" was wrong if they had had no knowledge of right and wrong? And why did God hold them accountable for their "sin" if he knew that they had no idea it was wrong?

Up to this point god created everything. There was no creation just what god created. God knows everything according to the story so he knew what would happen and wanted it to happen. From the incident he gave his creation the ability to create. Nudity and pregnancy are only mentioned after the sin. From the story the pain of pregnancy was a penalty to the woman for causing the sin.

My take of course but God wanted us to be able to create. The knowledge gave us the impression it was a sin. Because we believed it was a sin we were removed from gods presence until we could remove the belief of the sin.

Of course it is just a story, this is my rewrite using the existing as a guide.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

IF we make the hefty assumption that the story of Adam and Eve is true, why would we question everything else?

But it's such a novel question.

 

[Falvlun]

But it's such a novel question.

Well, it's not like it's not a valid one. Many Christians (I'm not sure about Jews/Muslims) do believe that Adam and Eve committed the original sin via the means described in Genesis, and God punished them and all of mankind for it. The belief is pretty atrocious if you think about it.

 

[Thief]

Man was created on Day Six.
No names... no law.
Man was created as a species...male and female.
Then told to go forth be fruitful and multiply.

Day Seven...God rests...the creation process has stopped.

THEN comes Chapter Two.

Apparently, God wanted something else...something more.
To get it...He chose a man and placed him into ideal living conditions.
The Garden.
The interaction must have gone well.
But to keep it going, Adam would need a suitable mate.
What happened then has all the earmarks of a science experiment.
Adam's rib was taken and cloned.
Adam was given his twin sister for a bride.
Eve had no navel.

The next step was to bring up a higher level of awareness.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not questioning the story itself, I'm questioning the reasoning of God in the story. What possible reason would he have to punish his creation that had no knowledge of right and wrong?

If you look closely at the story, it's really not that much of a punishment. God still provides for God's chosen creation. God still loves God's creation. This isn't so much a story of "how we messed up" as it is "how we came of age." It's a theological treatment of "why things are the way they are.

 

[Falvlun]

If you look closely at the story, it's really not that much of a punishment. God still provides for God's chosen creation. God still loves God's creation. This isn't so much a story of "how we messed up" as it is "how we came of age." It's a theological treatment of "why things are the way they are.

Unfortunately, it's also used as a justification for blaming humans for the way things are, and also conveniently provides the need for Jesus.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Unfortunately, it's also used as a justification for blaming humans for the way things are, and also conveniently provides the need for Jesus.

I was just about to say that myself

 

[bobhikes]

Unfortunately, it's also used as a justification for blaming humans for the way things are, and also conveniently provides the need for Jesus.

Whats wrong with humans being responcible for the way things are? I disagree as it providing a need for Jesus. At no point did God leave his creation. He was still their interacting with it. The need for a saviour came later in the bible. The saviour was for rescuing his people and reuiniting them as a people with their own home. The Jewish people don't believe this to be Jesus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, it's not like it's not a valid one.

It's a silly one, repeated ad nauseam and usually with rhetorical intent by folks far too proud of their ability to pummel clumsy straw men of their own creation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's a silly one, repeated ad nauseam and usually with rhetorical intent by folks far too proud of their ability to pummel clumsy straw men of their own creation.

nuk nuk nuk

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

It's a silly one, repeated ad nauseam and usually with rhetorical intent by folks far too proud of their ability to pummel clumsy straw men of their own creation.

So you can't answer it?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Whats wrong with humans being responcible for the way things are? I disagree as it providing a need for Jesus. At no point did God leave his creation. He was still their interacting with it. The need for a saviour came later in the bible. The saviour was for rescuing his people and reuiniting them as a people with their own home. The Jewish people don't believe this to be Jesus.

From a secular point of view I would agree with you, humans are responsible for the way things are. But if you look at the way this story is written, it's hard to hold humanity responsible

 

[Walkntune]

Assuming the Adam and Eve story is true, why would God create beings with no knowledge of right and wrong and then command them not to do something? How would they know that the commission of the "Original Sin" was wrong if they had had no knowledge of right and wrong? And why did God hold them accountable for their "sin" if he knew that they had no idea it was wrong?

God told them not to eat from the tree.They had instructions to follow.The commandment of itself gave them a knowledge of a right and wrong or at least instructions to be obedient to whether they understood consequences or not but God even told them the consequences.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

God told them not to eat from the tree.They had instructions to follow.The commandment of itself gave them a knowledge of a right and wrong or at least instructions to be obedient to whether they understood consequences or not but God even told them the consequences.

That's where the contradiction is. God told them the consequences as if they already understood that if they disobeyed him they were committing a sin. The Bible does not say that the command in itself gave them the knowledge of right and wrong, it says that knowledge was contained in the fruit. Why would God command them not to eat from the tree knowing they had no knowledge of right and wrong? Would you put a blind kid in a cubicle without telling him then tell him not to walk into the walls? And then would you take it a step further and punish that blind kid for doing it?

 

[Walkntune]

That's where the contradiction is. God told them the consequences as if they already understood that if they disobeyed him they were committing a sin. The Bible does not say that the command in itself gave them the knowledge of right and wrong, it says that knowledge was contained in the fruit. Why would God command them not to eat from the tree knowing they had no knowledge of right and wrong? Would you put a blind kid in a cubicle without telling him then tell him not to walk into the walls? And then would you take it a step further and punish that blind kid for doing it?

When God told them not to eat of the fruit, that was knowledge.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

When God told them not to eat of the fruit, that was knowledge.

That's not what the Bible says, so either the Bible is wrong or you are.

 

[Katzpur]

Assuming the Adam and Eve story is true, why would God create beings with no knowledge of right and wrong and then command them not to do something? How would they know that the commission of the "Original Sin" was wrong if they had had no knowledge of right and wrong? And why did God hold them accountable for their "sin" if he knew that they had no idea it was wrong?

Adam and Eve did not sin. They disobeyed, but they didn't know it was wrong to disobey until after they had eaten the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They were held accountable only to the extent that God told them what the consequences would be if they ate the fruit He'd told them not to eat. In other words, He gave them fair warning: If you do this, this is what's going to happen. But what they did was not "sinful." To sin, a person has to voluntarily choose to do wrong, and it's impossible to choose to do wrong when you don't know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, etc.