Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

[Symmetry]

Sym, didn't you study stuff like this before? If so, could you give us some context and/or arguments concerning the original sin hypothesis?

Probably not, It's roughly 2000 years worth of debate and schism.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sym, didn't you study stuff like this before? If so, could you give us some context and/or arguments concerning the original sin hypothesis?

Probably not, It's roughly 2000 years worth of debate and schism.

Regale us with a tale, if you will!

[2dimes]

I'll take a shot at a simple explanation.

Basically Adam and Eve were given one code of behavior or ethic. Do not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge or you will die.

No one can know what they knew and how life was for them but I would imagine they were like children. Innocent and in need of plenty of guidance. The story of genesis describes God visiting with them.

The serpent tells Eve God lied and if she eats the fruit she will just become like him. She eats it and it does not seem to have much effect initially. Then she feeds some to Adam.

Next time God comes by since they gained knowledge from eating the fruit they know they are naked and hide from him.

Once they broke the one code of behavior and ate the fruit causing them to have knowledge they had to switch to a deferent style of rules, morality. I don't know that it is Satanic so much as it allows or perhaps causes greater separation from God.

[john9blue]

I never understood the concept of original sin, so upon reading that, I found it more intriguing--but not intriguing enough to spend time wiki-googling it.

It's a fall from ethics to morality. The latter considered Satanic.

what does this post even mean? can you elaborate?

Ethics are essentially behavioral codes, or laws, Morals are more like independent judgements.

not exactly. ethics is the study of morality.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'll take a shot at a simple explanation.

Basically Adam and Eve were given one code of behavior or ethic. Do not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge or you will die.

No one can know what they knew and how life was for them but I would imagine they were like children. Innocent and in need of plenty of guidance. The story of genesis describes God visiting with them.

The serpent tells Eve God lied and if she eats the fruit she will just become like him. She eats it and it does not seem to have much effect initially. Then she feeds some to Adam.

Next time God comes by since they gained knowledge from eating the fruit they know they are naked and hide from him.

Once they broke the one code of behavior and ate the fruit causing them to have knowledge they had to switch to a deferent style of rules, morality. I don't know that it is Satanic so much as it allows or perhaps causes greater separation from God.

So, original sin--supposedly prevalent in all of us--binds us to God?

[2dimes]

Hence thousands of years of debate and schism. We are bound to God as his creations.

Original sin would be the one act of Eve, then Adam, eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge then becoming aware they were naked.

That is how people make the jump to original sin being sexual in nature as in " have carnal knowledge." Which can also be described as, to be naked with another person.

Then there is the concept. Sin separates us from God since he is pure and can't be where sin is. Does not matter if it is the original sin that carries forward or new sin I commit day to day. The sin must be atoned for with blood. That was where the alter in the temple came about for the sons and grandsons of Levi to make sacrifices to pay for or remove sin.

That process was on going and never removed the original sin, just the day to day ones.

Enter the messiah. His purpose is to be the blood atonement that could finally remove all sin.

[BigBallinStalin]

That reminds me of a point made by Christopher Hitchens (IIRC), who found it odd that humans suffered through a tremendous lot over 200,000 years or so, and then a messenger comes about--2000 years ago--with a completely different message from the Old Testament, and by showing the rest of the humans to the path of Totes Awesome. All humans prior to that, and the ones who haven't heard the Word, were condemned to hell, (weren't they)?

Is there where someone says, "god works in mysterious dickish ways?"

Given this management fiasco, how exactly is God not tainted with any sin?

[PLAYER57832]

I choose Option 5.

Cruelty, death, and murder are inherent in the design of the universe. Nothing can live without killing something else. (Vegetarian and organic-agriculture nonsense aside -- even if you grow your veggies with no pesticides, still you are condemning to death by habitat loss those animals who could have lived on that cropland if you hadn't claimed it first.) Nothing good persists -- create the greatest work of art in the universe, and almost instantly entropy sets about destroying it. Even the most innocent moss lives by secreting acid which crumbles the rock beneath it.

Either there is no God, or he is a profoundly evil and sadistic God. Humans are neither more nor less evil than his other creations. Like every other species, we live by ruthlessly stamping out our competitors, and we will die when someone more ruthless comes and stamps out us. Even if we don't, we will eventually cease to exist when increasing entropy and the expansion of the universe makes existence ultimately impossible, when even subatomic particles are too far apart to interact with each other.

The dove -- universal symbol of peace and mercy -- is one of the most vicious animals known. Male doves will peck out each other's eyes when fighting over a mate. The loser will wander the earth desolate and blind until he eventually starves to death. The female is no innocent, either. While the males are mutilating each other for her affection, she is out there busily tearing up the nests of other birds. That's our wonderful bird of peace and mercy.

The Bible is right about one thing and one thing only -- ALL IS VANITY AND VEXATION OF THE SPIRIT. That's all there is.

Original sin my fat fucking ass. The only original sin is the design of this evil universe that demands blood sacrifice at every level.

Instead of entropy, evil, and death, I tend to view some of which you described as Creative Destruction.

Would adopting that term make you feel any better about life in general?

Its related, but a different concept. The traditional model, of parent and child, fits better. However, that requires understanding that we are likely in the preschool or early adolescent stage of development. We are able to know that we can make choices and want to make them, but cannot fully understand the complete impacts of many choices for the very long term.

Poverty, death, disease are all bad, but the constant irony, philosophical argument is that without harm, without great ill, we would not have true joy. Further, without the chance to make bad choices, we would have no chance to make any choices. Does a parent who let their son/daughter go the neighbor’s house, only to have them hit by a car chastise themselves forever? Of course! A parent who has a child who drinks and winds up either getting killed or killing someone else chastises themselves as well, if they have any sense of anything other than anger and pain?

We look only at the bad, because we, like a child, cannot see the long term future. We want to take the hugs and kisses, but not the punishments or even the bad consequences that are just the result of choice, even very, very bad choices. God does not want us to do evil, particularly great evil, any more than a parent wants their child to get run over by a car. Still, a parent will let their child out of their site, will let them go across the street at some point, because the alternative is so much worse.

If Eve had not partaken of the tree of knowledge we would be nothing more than animals. We would be animals that had some aspects of God’s appearance (and most theologians say we have aspects of God other than just appearance), but we would not be what we now consider to be “human”.

The idea of original sin is actually a relatively new “invention”. Some people don’t realize that Jews actually don’t necessarily believe in heaven, never mind original sin. (I will let the Jews in the forum explain their particular faith variations).

That reminds me of a point made by Christopher Hitchens (IIRC), who found it odd that humans suffered through a tremendous lot over 200,000 years or so, and then a messenger comes about--2000 years ago--with a completely different message from the Old Testament, and by showing the rest of the humans to the path of Totes Awesome. All humans prior to that, and the ones who haven't heard the Word, were condemned to hell, (weren't they)?

Is there where someone says, "god works in mysterious dickish ways?"

Given this management fiasco, how exactly is God not tainted with any sin?

The prior 200,000 years of humanity were not condemned to hell. Generally, its accepted that they will have the chance to hear God’s word… as will anyone who has not heard it here on Earth. (though how that happens and if it will happen is a point of disagreement in the church)

It is very significant that the tree was the tree of knowledge. When told in "fairy tale" style, particular by secular individuals, the story tends to be one of introducing sin. That is correct in a sense, but in the Bible there are 2 incidents that introduce sin.

Adam and Eve, then Cain and Abel. Eve brought knowledge of sin, the sin of disobedience then being possible. Also, while it seems they got the knowledge of the ability to do wrong, the basic sin to which is referred is “carnal knowledge”, thus “they covered themselves”. Cain and Abel brought the whole other mix of sin.

Even so, Christ could not come earlier, because people had to understand the folly of prior ways. Ironically, we keep making the same mistakes. We still look to hierarchy and rules, still put up institutions above people and common decency and try to justify it as “piety”.

[crispybits]

It is very significant that the tree was the tree of knowledge. When told in "fairy tale" style, particular by secular individuals, the story tends to be one of introducing sin. That is correct in a sense, but in the Bible there are 2 incidents that introduce sin.

Adam and Eve, then Cain and Abel. Eve brought knowledge of sin, the sin of disobedience then being possible. Also, while it seems they got the knowledge of the ability to do wrong, the basic sin to which is referred is “carnal knowledge”, thus “they covered themselves”. Cain and Abel brought the whole other mix of sin.

So you're saying that before the apple was eaten, Eve (and Adam) had no knowledge of what disobedience was? How was Eve meant to know that eating the apple was wrong if she had no knowledge of right and wrong?

(There were two trees by the way, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil - it was not just the "tree of knowledge")

[kentington]

That reminds me of a point made by Christopher Hitchens (IIRC), who found it odd that humans suffered through a tremendous lot over 200,000 years or so, and then a messenger comes about--2000 years ago--with a completely different message from the Old Testament, and by showing the rest of the humans to the path of Totes Awesome. All humans prior to that, and the ones who haven't heard the Word, were condemned to hell, (weren't they)?

Is there where someone says, "god works in mysterious dickish ways?"

Given this management fiasco, how exactly is God not tainted with any sin?

Not mysterious. I will have to look it up, but I am pretty sure that it is implied or said that when Christ was crucified He went down and brought some who were dead up. I really can't remember off the top of my head, but I think that is when those who died prior to Christ were given a chance.

[PLAYER57832]

It is very significant that the tree was the tree of knowledge. When told in "fairy tale" style, particular by secular individuals, the story tends to be one of introducing sin. That is correct in a sense, but in the Bible there are 2 incidents that introduce sin.

Adam and Eve, then Cain and Abel. Eve brought knowledge of sin, the sin of disobedience then being possible. Also, while it seems they got the knowledge of the ability to do wrong, the basic sin to which is referred is “carnal knowledge”, thus “they covered themselves”. Cain and Abel brought the whole other mix of sin.

So you're saying that before the apple was eaten, Eve (and Adam) had no knowledge of what disobedience was? How was Eve meant to know that eating the apple was wrong if she had no knowledge of right and wrong?

It can be interpreted to mean a specific type of sin, awareness. A 2 year old understands that mom and dad must be obeyed. A teenager begins to understand why mom and dad put down rules that there are exceptions, that he/she might choose not to follow some things mom and dad say.

There are a lot of subtleties. I don't really want to get into another "free will" discussion. I am just saying that there is a difference between what is commonly accepted and what the Bible actually says.. and the difference is important.

[PLAYER57832]

That reminds me of a point made by Christopher Hitchens (IIRC), who found it odd that humans suffered through a tremendous lot over 200,000 years or so, and then a messenger comes about--2000 years ago--with a completely different message from the Old Testament, and by showing the rest of the humans to the path of Totes Awesome. All humans prior to that, and the ones who haven't heard the Word, were condemned to hell, (weren't they)?

Is there where someone says, "god works in mysterious dickish ways?"

Given this management fiasco, how exactly is God not tainted with any sin?

Not mysterious. I will have to look it up, but I am pretty sure that it is implied or said that when Christ was crucified He went down and brought some who were dead up. I really can't remember off the top of my head, but I think that is when those who died prior to Christ were given a chance.

Were or will be. That part is open to some discussion.

[KoolBak]

Re: the whole apple thing....It is my understanding that a main factor of the Original Sin was that Eve didn't accept her part in the eating and passed blame to the snake, ie, "The snake made me do it!". I attended an uppity private Catholic college and was forced to study theology for the 4 years I was there (fun for an agnostic....I got straight A's....lol) and the brothers that taught this portion leaned heavily on the whole "passage of blame" thing....

Anyway....that's all

[crispybits]

There are a lot of subtleties. I don't really want to get into another "free will" discussion. I am just saying that there is a difference between what is commonly accepted and what the Bible actually says.. and the difference is important.

And all I keep trying to get down to and keep getting stonewalled is why that difference is there.

To borrow a literary tool from BBS, either:

(a) The bible is absolute truth, and humans have misinterpretted it and corrupted it, and therefore it can no longer be trusted as a path to absolute truth without a big exercise to attempt to genuinely undo the damage we have caused to the message.

(b) The bible is something just close to the truth, and as humans it is our purpose to keep refining that truth, distilling it through reason and morality and the tools God gave us in our own search for the absolute truth.

(c) The bible is absolute truth, and we as humans cannot truly access it properly as are doomed to always be a little bit off from the true message.

(d) Something else (please specify)

[PLAYER57832]

There are a lot of subtleties. I don't really want to get into another "free will" discussion. I am just saying that there is a difference between what is commonly accepted and what the Bible actually says.. and the difference is important.

And all I keep trying to get down to and keep getting stonewalled is why that difference is there.

To borrow a literary tool from BBS, either:

(a) The bible is absolute truth, and humans have misinterpretted it and corrupted it, and therefore it can no longer be trusted as a path to absolute truth without a big exercise to attempt to genuinely undo the damage we have caused to the message.

(b) The bible is something just close to the truth, and as humans it is our purpose to keep refining that truth, distilling it through reason and morality and the tools God gave us in our own search for the absolute truth.

(c) The bible is absolute truth, and we as humans cannot truly access it properly as are doomed to always be a little bit off from the true message.

(d) Something else (please specify)

NO stonewalling, just revisit the "free will" thread.

some discussions just don't have a true resolution. Pretending that it is only religious individuals who are "stonewalling" instaed of it being a case of no real clear answer from any direction may be convenient, but it is hardly truth. I have spent enough time debating this here. Repetition won't gain anything.

[KoolBak]

D. The bible is (primarily) a work of fiction meant to support a system of faith.

(again, from the teachings of catholic priests in an objective college classroom ;o)

[premio53]

Atheist George Carlin (who passed into eternity in 2008) said, "But I want to you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is...wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption...Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed."

When an atheist rejects Genesis 1 (about creation), he automatically rejects Genesis 3 (about the Fall of mankind). God created all things perfect, but when Adam sinned agtainst God, it brought God's curse on all of creation. Thus, disease, suffering, pain, and death are ultimately the fault of man, not God. Reject that explanation and you wind up with a philosophy similar to George Carlin. The sufferings of this world shouldn't be used as an excuse to reject the Scriptures, but should be seen as a very real evidence that what the Bible says is true. (The Evidence Bible)

[crispybits]

There are a lot of subtleties. I don't really want to get into another "free will" discussion. I am just saying that there is a difference between what is commonly accepted and what the Bible actually says.. and the difference is important.

And all I keep trying to get down to and keep getting stonewalled is why that difference is there.

To borrow a literary tool from BBS, either:

(a) The bible is absolute truth, and humans have misinterpretted it and corrupted it, and therefore it can no longer be trusted as a path to absolute truth without a big exercise to attempt to genuinely undo the damage we have caused to the message.

(b) The bible is something just close to the truth, and as humans it is our purpose to keep refining that truth, distilling it through reason and morality and the tools God gave us in our own search for the absolute truth.

(c) The bible is absolute truth, and we as humans cannot truly access it properly as are doomed to always be a little bit off from the true message.

(d) Something else (please specify)

NO stonewalling, just revisit the "free will" thread.

some discussions just don't have a true resolution. Pretending that it is only religious individuals who are "stonewalling" instaed of it being a case of no real clear answer from any direction may be convenient, but it is hardly truth. I have spent enough time debating this here. Repetition won't gain anything.

You mean this one?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=56110&start=270

I haven't read it all yet but I will, but if that is the thread you're referencing to say "I've already said I this I can't be bothered going through it all again" and referencing a discussion you had 5 years ago without a link is a bit... meh

[PLAYER57832]

You mean this one?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=56110&start=270

I haven't read it all yet but I will, but if that is the thread you're referencing to say "I've already said I this I can't be bothered going through it all again" and referencing a discussion you had 5 years ago without a link is a bit... meh

OK, fair enough, I probably should have said earlier discussions I had with you, but that might have been in another thread.

Anyway, to simplify it, the bottom line is that to have free will means we have to have the option for bad choices. Having free will is critical to us being human, without it we would not BE human. So, its not really a matter of “God chose to create this, including bad stuff for his reasons”, so much as “God, for whatever reason, chose to create humanity” . Also, as john, dimes and I have all variously mentioned, our determination of evil is based on our time, not God’s.

It doesn’t take a great deal of thinking to come up with scenarios in which committing what otherwise might be a truly heneous act, say killing someone or cutting off their leg, would be justified. My imagination is pretty active so I REALLY don’t want to go down this path more, but if there are situations when we, humans can conceive of justification for doing virtually anything horrible we can imagine, then it is not unreasonable to think that an almight God would have reasons for allowing the things we see and consider evil, even great ones.

As an aside, near the end of the thread (page 17-18 or so), there was another “evolution is wrong” discussion.. this one about the Big Bang.

[2dimes]

the apple

This is a good example of the fact that we should be smarter but can't understand some things. So to make discussion easier someone years ago dumbed it down to something ridiculous. I'm drained right now and would like to pull that in a way.
"Sin is bad mmkay? Don't sin." So anyway..

The tree of knowledge and it's fruit can't possibly be something we still have. I've seen people eat apples everyday. No change.

This tree of knowledge if it's not a metaphor, (possible, I'm agnostic toward it) would basically in my opinion have to be magic, not awesome illusion magic like "Chris Angel." Biological magic like, having sex then a baby is formed inside the womb of the woman.

Explain that to a four year old without using a stork.

That reminds me of a point made by Christopher Hitchens (IIRC), who found it odd that humans suffered through a tremendous lot over 200,000 years or so, and then a messenger comes about--2000 years ago--with a completely different message from the Old Testament, and by showing the rest of the humans to the path of Totes Awesome. All humans prior to that, and the ones who haven't heard the Word, were condemned to hell, (weren't they)?

Is there where someone says, "god works in mysterious dickish ways?"

Given this management fiasco, how exactly is God not tainted with any sin?

Sin is cumulative so by the time of the "messenger." The people from generations before that who were able to catch a glimpse of God in the temple, were gone and their replacements had become too separated from him just like the rest of us.

This is why Priests are no longer closer to God than anyone else. In fact you only get closer to God now through your own personal random acts of kindness and earnestly seeking him. Not because you were voted in followed by white smoke, a cool hat and trying to tell people to be more like yourself.

Since we lack confidence to seek our own answers and understanding of God, we turn to Priests and cult leaders such as Christopher Hitchens to tell us about God, or a lack there of.

All humans prior to that, and the ones who haven't heard the Word, were condemned to hell, (weren't they)?

I'll go with, "No." for now, I don't have the energy to chase down specifics in the bible. Partially because I won't be able to avoid debating people, who will come in fresh and try to disprove it with things they heard or read, instead of considering it for themselves. And I might need to go for a nap instead.

[crispybits]

Anyway, to simplify it, the bottom line is that to have free will means we have to have the option for bad choices. Having free will is critical to us being human, without it we would not BE human. So, its not really a matter of “God chose to create this, including bad stuff for his reasons”, so much as “God, for whatever reason, chose to create humanity” . Also, as john, dimes and I have all variously mentioned, our determination of evil is based on our time, not God’s.

It doesn’t take a great deal of thinking to come up with scenarios in which committing what otherwise might be a truly heneous act, say killing someone or cutting off their leg, would be justified. My imagination is pretty active so I REALLY don’t want to go down this path more, but if there are situations when we, humans can conceive of justification for doing virtually anything horrible we can imagine, then it is not unreasonable to think that an almight God would have reasons for allowing the things we see and consider evil, even great ones.

As an aside, near the end of the thread (page 17-18 or so), there was another “evolution is wrong” discussion.. this one about the Big Bang.

And this is where I think the fundamental flaw in your reasoning lays (and by the way none of that actually answered the question I asked)

"Having free will is critical to us being human, without it we would not BE human."

Really? On what grounds do you assert this? If we are fully deterministic physical sacks of blood and bone, with no more free will than a rock, how does that make us any less human?

You're making a claim of special status that is so extremely arrogant that I don't even think you can even see it. I don't think you're being purposefully arrogant, but in the end that's the only conclusion from pretty much all religious claims. "We are special, made in the image of God, blah blah blah". Unless you have a real basis to back up that claim then it's pure arrogance, and until you understand that you're deceiving yourself just the same as Viceroy does with all his evolution nonsense.

[2dimes]

So, no surprise. Look at dimes, he's too stupid to go for that nap.

You say I'm arrogant because I think I'm better than a rock? You know what else? I'm better than a dog too. Not in loyalty but I defy you to show me a dog that can drive a car.



Oh. Never mind, I'm just arrogant.

[PLAYER57832]

Really? On what grounds do you assert this? If we are fully deterministic physical sacks of blood and bone, with no more free will than a rock, how does that make us any less human?

It makes us different from the other animals on Earth.

You're making a claim of special status that is so extremely arrogant that I don't even think you can even see it. I don't think you're being purposefully arrogant, but in the end that's the only conclusion from pretty much all religious claims. "We are special, made in the image of God, blah blah blah". Unless you have a real basis to back up that claim then it's pure arrogance, and until you understand that you're deceiving yourself just the same as Viceroy does with all his evolution nonsense.

LOL.... not quite. Its really one of the most fundamental philosophical issues. Rather like "I think... therefore I am".

In truth, I by passed most of the argument because it would just drive this off tangent. i can get into that, though it may take me a day or two to get back here.

However, what question? Seriously, having pretty major computer issues, so hard for me to backtrack now.

[BigBallinStalin]

That reminds me of a point made by Christopher Hitchens (IIRC), who found it odd that humans suffered through a tremendous lot over 200,000 years or so, and then a messenger comes about--2000 years ago--with a completely different message from the Old Testament, and by showing the rest of the humans to the path of Totes Awesome. All humans prior to that, and the ones who haven't heard the Word, were condemned to hell, (weren't they)?

Is there where someone says, "god works in mysterious dickish ways?"

Given this management fiasco, how exactly is God not tainted with any sin?

Not mysterious. I will have to look it up, but I am pretty sure that it is implied or said that when Christ was crucified He went down and brought some who were dead up. I really can't remember off the top of my head, but I think that is when those who died prior to Christ were given a chance.

Gee, what a queue that must've been!

Anyway, given this management fiasco, how exactly is God not tainted with any sin?
(referring to all those years prior to any Religious Code being released--thus the right way to live, being revealed).

[crispybits]

Plainly put, the question is "what is the cause/reason/nature of the difference between what the bible says and what is commonly accepted?"

And arrogance at an ability to drive or do complex maths or whatever is a VERY different thing to arrogance that we are special beings distinct from every other being that exists because of some supernatural "soul" or however you wish to describe it (because I know the definitions vary depending on the religious basis for the claim)