Importance of Original Sin

Precisely true. In fact, the same tactic is employed by the Church of Scientology and their personality 'test'. Which everyone of course fails. But they offer a chance to 'fix' what is wrong with you and it only requires joining their church and paying them money.Concepts like this are such an obvious scam tactic that I am amazed they still work in this modern day and age.On a side-bar, and I always wanted to ask this question:
According to Christian scripture, Eve was tempted to eat from the forbidden fruit by Satan who was masquerading as a snake. Can I ask exactly how Satan actually gained entrance to the Garden of Eden? Wasn't he banished to Hell after he rebelled? For an all knowing and all powerful god, as referenced in Christianity, he is surprisingly lax about how he handles security. One good bouncer from an L.A. club who maintains the VIP list could have prevented the whole original sin thing to begin with.

Ah, ok. I was not aware that the original canon did not depict Satan as the actual snake, although I could have sworn from my albeit archaic remembrance of Bible study was that our bible school teacher used the serpent and Satan in a synonymous sense.I guess my question somewhat still stands: if this serpent was essentially malevolent or had ill intent, then what was it doing in the Garden of Eden, which has always been depicted as being paradise?

Interesting.Incidentally, when you brought up the notion of Satan (or the serpent) being somewhat of a 'trickster' deity, I couldn't help but draw parallels with that and Loki from Norse mythology. I am curious if there was any cross pollination of religious concepts in that regard. Greek mythology also has references to tricksters in the form of Hermes and his offspring, Pan.

I would probably guess most Christians probably would not think along those lines. Satan was always depicted as the malevolent entity that was attempting to usurp god's power.Although interestingly, your definition is more in line with how Angels are depicted in the Bible. In most cases, whenever god needed something to be done on Earth, his agent would often be one of the angels.

I agree with Tangle in this regard. I find the whole concept of original sin to be patently absurd. It is a vestigial concept of our more barbaric times, when children were ultimately responsible for the actions of their parents. One only need to read excerpts from the Code of Hammurabi to gauge where these notions originated. This example drives home the point relatively well:

quote:

---

228. If a builder build a house for some one and complete it, he shall give him a fee of two shekels in money for each sar of surface.

​

229. If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.

​

230. If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death.

---

We have of course evolved beyond these archaic notions, but the concepts of the past still permeate in many of our religious teachings.

No one is denying that Christian dogma revolves around the notion of original sin. So any 'proofs' you provide are un-necessary. What we argue is that the concept is patently absurd and is indicative of an obvious scare tactic as a means to bring more followers into the fold through fear. This may come as a surprise to you, but most if not all of us are quite familiar with the bible. I myself grew up in a time when bible study still existed in public schools and I was inundated with scriptures and readings for years in my youth. So reading any passages from the bible in my adulthood will do nothing but reaffirm the conclusions I came to when I was, oh, twelve years old.

I find it fascinating that Christians cannot accept that those that disagree with their faith and dogma MUST of course be closed minded. Because if I reached a different conclusion than you, I obviously cannot have approached the situation without bias?My friend. I spent many years growing up with Christian teachings around me. Religious classes were mandatory in my school. I would also like to point out that I also read about many other religions and their teachings as I found the subject intriguing. And my inevitable conclusion to the varied religions and their philosophies on life was simple: they were mechanisms that attempted to explain the various forces of nature in our world in a time long before the age of Reason. Nothing more. There was nothing profound nor unique to any of these varied faiths. Merely different views on the world all based on the opinions of men that had little to no working knowledge of the universe.

The attitude of leveraging my cerebral cortex to analyze all that around me. Not my fault that there are umpteen versions of that book. When you all agree on which version is the 'right' one, please let me know. Perhaps I missed a post or two, but my suspicion is that they are rejecting your 'proofs' of the inherent sinful nature of man but not denying that the notion exists in your bible. As Tangle and I already stated, this is one of the main marketing ploys leveraged by Christians. You are inherently 'flawed' and you need our help to be 'fixed'. By the way, the Church of Scientology uses the exact same tactic with their personality 'test'. *patting myself on the back*And for the record, I was not referring to childhood Sunday school. I indicated these were religious classes taught in PUBLIC school. I grew up in Canada and we did not eliminate religious classes from our schools until the late 80s. I had bible study in school all the way until the Eighth grade. Actually, no. What I stipulated is that I took classes on the subject all the way until the eighth grade. So no, it was not just reciting the lords prayer; it was full fledged analysis of the bible and daily readings and interpretations from its versus. And despite all of that, I still somehow came to the same conclusions that I have now.

And indeed I did.But what is fascinating is following: you are not telling me ANYTHING that I did not know already.This is probably one of the more frustrating aspects of engaging in dialog with certain religious individuals. You think that by inundating us with endless scripture and interpretations of that scripture, somehow you will get us to 'see' the world as you do.My friend, as I stipulated earlier, none of this is new to me. I have read it all. I studied it, took classes on the subject, had tests on the material, and scored a relatively high grade I might add. I am not reading anything here that is not common knowledge. Myself and others may disagree on specifics of the interpretations, but the concept is quite simple and easy to comprehend.Ultimately, you are still missing the crux of the baseline argument that both Tangle and myself are stipulating: that the whole notion of Original Sin is abhorrent. It is a barbaric and archaic philosophy that permeated in our more primitive past, as evidenced by various laws that existed at the time, which the law of the Bible borrowed.Now if you want to go off on a tangent again and throw endless streams of scripture at us along with your diagnosis of the words, go right ahead. But to what end? Are you attempting to convey information we did not already know? Doesn't seem so, since this is common knowledge.The point is: I don't care how the spin is conveyed. I am not interested in how you do verbal gymnastics to attempt to explain how Original Sin occurred, how it affected humanity, how Jesus needed to be butchered in the most horrendous way to save our poor souls. The explanations are meaningless because they do nothing to deal with the root of the problem: that the concept of Original Sin is abhorrent. Pure and simple.

I never claim to 'know it all'. I do however state that I did learn all this in my past. For example, I never took formal classes on Islam or Hinduism. I am familiar with some of their tenets, but I am by no means an expert. Heck, I would not even consider myself an expert on the bible, but I did READ IT. And study it. In the same way I studied trigonometry, algebra, Shakespeare, calculus, electromagnetic theory, particle physics, thermodynamics, etc, etc. From the standpoint of scripture, that varies based on interpretation. Ephesians, which you reference, ultimately pushed forth the concept of One Lord and One Faith. Which ultimately is interpreted as a divine purpose to unify all faiths around a single creator; i.e. the formation of a singular church under the banner of Christianity. God conveyed that he wanted to make his wisdom available through the church which Paul set forth to do. God was a 'mystery' until Paul brought him to light.And once again, part of the overall gimmick. Under the guise of what the creator wants, you must build a church in the name of the god of christianity. And who is this god? Why, he was a mystery until I told you about him, so now you have to go to that big building over there, be humble and toss money into the collection plate.

Jaywill, now you are just ranting. But let me touch on a few points: Once again, this is part in parcel with what Tangle and I have been stipulating: Christianity is predicated on the notion of putting forth the myth that there is something inherently wrong with humanity and only Christianity can help. Marketing ploy if there ever was one. We've said it several times now but it appears the notion is not sinking in. And of course you would not find any notion of that since it was undermine what Christianity was attempting to do: indicate that it, and only it, is capable of solving your problems. It's 'loser' by the way. Looser is what you might find in the Red Light district. And some of us have read the same thing you have, concluded it is nothing more than bronze age mythology that utilizes special pleading and scare tactics in order to increase the number of people in its ranks. If you thought I 'saw something' then you clearly have not been reading my posts. Then why is he so fixated on whether or not I show up at his building on Sunday? To what end? First good piece of advice you have given. Although sometimes, I have to step away from purely scientific dialog and enjoy a little free comedy. So does the guy at the local street corner with the 'End is Near' sign. I don't take anything he has to say seriously either.

Actually, children have an inherent self preservation instinct that we all share. Lying or being deceitful is a defensive reaction to the situation. Incidentally, lying in and of itself is not necessarily 'evil'. Ever heard of a white lie? According to your scripture, god made man. Period. If man began to operate in a manner not conducive with the expectations of the designer, the designer is at fault.
I am a software engineer. If I write a piece of code that malfunctions, I don't blame the code. To the answer set forth by the individuals peddling the gimmick. A gimmick that states you are broken and you need me to fix you. Would you prefer early Iron Age? Although to be fair, they overlapped and bronze was still heavily used in the time of jesus. Spider-man does not regard the Green Goblin as fiction. I guess if its good enough for Spider-man, its good enough for all of us. The word 'justified' is the keyword. Fear of heights. Legitimate. Fear of a car crash. Logical. Fear of eternal damnation for picking the wrong religion: laughable. You just self-contradicted yourself in those statements.And for the record, if it is only the fear of eternal damnation that keeps you in line, that is actually what is truly frightening.

Nice hyperbole. No, the lies of religious charlatans or unethical marketing ploys is not okay. Lying to save someone's life from a crazy person: probably okay. Pretty sad that this needs to be explained to you. Every heard of A.I.?And nice try at a dodge, but the analogy is quite sound. The point attempting to be conveyed is the relationship between the designer and that which is being designed. The designer controls ALL aspects of how things in the end product will behave. And that includes the 'free will' mechanism. Which, by your own statements, is actually an illusion. God gave man free will and then told man how to behave. Not exactly effective.If I write an A.I. that is designed to freely define its own taste in music, I cannot then state to this program that it can function autonomously but it MUST only choose the music I like. I have just undermined the function of my own program. Get the picture now? How about I do this: why did god let satan (manifesting as a serpent) into the garden of eden in the first place? I thought satan was banished to hell? What exactly was he doing there and how did he get in? You god is pretty lousy at security. Sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me. Kudos to you. Too bad all those Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists and us poor, mis-guided atheists will just burn in hell for all eternity, right?

Not just dishonest, but disgustingly dishonest? Well, ouch.And for the record, I was not implying that you agreed with that notion, I was pointing out the absurdity of the analogy. Please try to read more carefully. Double ouch. How do you KNOW that? What evidence do you have that 'souls' exist and what evidence do you have that they cannot manifest in something other than humans? You are reading your scripture and working backwards, pigeon holing things as needed. Once again, the analogy goes totally over your head.The concept I am conveying is the relationship between the designer and that which is being designed. It doesn't matter if that which is being designed is an A.I., a bridge, an iPhone, or a Tickle Me Elmo. The ultimate point is the designer is ultimately responsible for their design. PERIOD. End of story. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. And those disputes still exist. But no, this is not like arguing on the deck of the Titanic who is at fault. This discussion is akin to performing an analysis of the disaster after it has occurred, similar to what the NTSB does. Last time I checked, nobody absolved the humans and blamed the boat for what happened. Are you certain? And your need to label things as 'artificial' is predicated on your need to place humans on a pedestal, as dictated in the bible where they have dominion over all other creatures and have souls. You are begging the question. No need. I contemplated it when I was about fourteen and came to the conclusion I have now. If there were 'lying things' and 'sneaky things' in the garden of eden, than it was NOT paradise. But even if one can consider a snake 'sneaky', the point is not even that it was a snake, it was actually Satan. Sorry, but allowing that to happen would be like inviting John Wayne Gacy to your kid's birthday party. Once again, you are looking at the literal aspects of the analogy without understanding the crux of the analogy: the relationship between the designer and that which is designed. And you make that assumption based on......? I would hope most people are upset by unethical behavior.With regards to who the judge is, we all are. We have a compendium of laws that were compiled by men as part of our broader social order. Good and evil are actually anachronistic concepts and are often relative. Which is why dealing with them in absolutes is not possible and requires us to weigh factors when we draw our conclusions. Are these conclusions perfect? Of course not, because humans are not perfect. So evil only exists in Christian world views? Muslims have no concept of evil? Buddhists? We are all 'borrowing' from you? Geez dude, how condescending and narcissistic is that notion? And here you are outed again, as in your dialog with Tangle. Ultimately, your need for cosmic justice is dictating your religious view.As an atheist, yes, I believe that if a charlatan or 'evil doer' is not brought to justice in this world, they melt (decay) into the dust. Nothing happens beyond that. Assuming otherwise is just trying to satisfy your need that bad people eventually get what is coming to them.By the way, if a charlatan or 'evil doer' repents on their death bed and is saved, do they go to heaven? And if so, where is the justice in that regard? Ah, the old invocation of other 'atheists' as a means to draw a conclusion that they are all evil. Well, at least you had the wherewithal to not mention Hitler. Afterall, he was Roman Catholic. And once again, you are outed. Eventually revolving back to the Original Sin ploy. Triple ouch. I do love BBQ though. Do they have combo rib and chicken BBQ platters in hell? And now we have come full circle. Didn't we already answer the 'eternal purpose' of god in a previous post? Remember?
"Go to that big building you worthless, disgusting, original sin carrying human and beg for forgiveness for something that allegedly happened umpteen years ago. Oh, and don't forget to put some money in the collection plate...."

*yawn*Another day, another tired scare tactic clich from a zealot. Guess I won't be hearing your answer about god allowing satan to enter the garden of eden. Oh well. That's too bad. I was looking forward to how that would be spun.