Importance of Original Sin

The importance of Original Sin is to convince you that you really need what its promoter is selling. Its just an oral tradition explaining man's place in the world. We're animals.

He could've just used a different creation myth.You don't think the events described in the story of Adam and Eve actually happened, do you?

The only reason you could have for supposing it other than true would be if Paul gave a hint that he thought it was?What about the fact that it couldn't have actually happened?And relying solely on Paul for reasons to suppose things as other than true is a little silly, consider all the untrue things that he fails to even mention... "Chocolate isn't dilicious"... I dunno, Paul didn't say that it was

Why?Don't you see how silly that can get... I don't believe you'll stick to it, so I claim: Iano does not only reject false things because Paul hints they're true.The only way you can prove me wrong is by showing where Paul says otherwise., which he doesn't... So now you can't suppose my claim is other than true. Two things: Just because someone mentions a fictional story does not mean they believe it actually happened. Or, maybe he did think it actually happened and he was just wrong about that.Although, I suppose you'd have a problem with Paul being wrong about something... who do think this guy is? God incarnate? What about Jesus? Shouldn't he be your man? No, just a fact fact. The events in the story could not have actually happened as described.

"Because otherwise I'd be wrong about this other thing" is not a good reason to suppose that something is true... How do you know? What makes you think you can speak for Paul?Maybe the people he was actually writing to understood that it was mythical already? You'll have to help me with the historical aspect of who the letter mentioning A&E was written to...If I was explaining to you the dichotomy between good and evil, and reference Darth Vader from Star Wars, I wouldn't feel the need to go: "Oh yeah, by the way, that shit never really happened". We all know Star Wars is a story. That's the worst attitude ever... One little insignificant error, and your ready to shit on all of the wonderful things that are in the book. That's terrible, iano. You should be ashamed of that statement.All of the great truths that are in there, are true regardless of there being some parts that aren't factually correct. That you cannot accept those great turths as true without assuming that every single thing must also be true makes me feel sorry for you. Not what I meant, but whatever. You're practically worshiping Paul. A talking snake and magic fruit!? C'mon, it smacks of "fairytale".Too, Humans did not descend from one single pair of people.

So we're talking about your opinion on this... I don't see it as unlikely as you're making it out to be.For example:

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 15:45**
So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being

---

"So it was written" as opposed to "So it was" leaves open the possibility that he was talking about a story that wasn't necessarily factual events. He also mentions Adam and Eve in a letter to Timothy in 1 Timothy 2:13... I don't know much about Timothy and whether or not they could've understood that the story was not about factual events. Do you think its possible?Still though, here we have Paul mentioning A&E after saying that women should STFU... Not much of a "timeless truth" there, so we can see that he is capable of error. Right, but if you find one little error anywhere in the book, then you're gonna throw all that away? Yeah, those stupid women thinking they should be allowed to talk From Message 84: Then sin is to be avoided because of the consequence? Rather than "seeking God", you're "avoiding unpleasantness"? You sure that's what Jesus would want? Love God is the first commandment...Oh, and how do we love God? By what we do to the least of his people.

---

** NIV is just the default version, do you have a preference?

So you're just going to ignore the cases that suggest you might be wrong? So you're just going to close your eyes to possibilities that might suggest you're wrong? Because, well, there could be... who, exactly, was Timothy and what kind of background did he have? Is it plausible that he understood that the A&E story was a myth already so Paul had no need to point it out? I really wish you would have prodvided some verses so I knew what you're referencing right now instead of having to wait for you to present it now that I've requested it. You should always provide verses, or message numbers to where they were already provided, when you're referencing a part of the Bible like you are here. So, I'm not going to just take your word on this and would rather read the text myself and see if you're right. So what chapters and verses are you looking at?**nevermind, I did the leg work and am assuming you're talking about Romans 5:12 +

quote:

---

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

---

Okay, so yeah, I still don't see this as bad as you're making it out to be. Look at it this way:"Therefore, just as Anaking Skywalker already had the Midi-chlorians in his cells before he learned the ways of the force and was lead to the dark side, too all men are born with the capacity to sin..."If you're referencing something that your audience understands is a myth, then there's no reason to point that out, especially when its because its beside the point. So, what was his audience like and did they already understand that the A&E story was a myth?If not, and it turns out that everyone really did think the events actually occured, then that would just mean that they were wrong. Its no big deal, really. People back then believed all kinds of wrong things. Right, so the straight forward answer is that Paul was wrong. But no, you're not capable of accepting that, so instead you have to twist what is written into some convoluted story to avoid admitting that Paul could have been wrong about something. Nope, you've just spun what I wrote to shoehorn it into your preconceived idea of the whole story.You could convince yourself of anything with your approach: Ignore the cases that suggest your wrong, close your eyes to other information, focus on the small parts that have convinced you you're right, and spin everything else into fitting in with the whole story. Yeah, you'd have to be trying to follow what Jesus said, instead on focusing on Paul.

Because the story of Abraham is presumed to be historical while that Adam and Eve myth is not.

Being not set on Earth would make it more of a myth But that doesn't matter, because it was obviously set on Earth. There wasn't anything growing on the earth yet partly because there was nobody to till the gound, and then god made Adam from the ground, itself. (Gen 2:5-7). Chapters and verses please. I've never seen that in the text. Which doesn't make it any less mythical. I don't think so... It seems like a straight-forward campfire tale to me. You're going to have to provide me with chapters and verses in order for me to be able to discuss this with you. Yup, I agree.Original Sin is a marketing tool. Its used to convince you that you really need what they are selling.

Magneto flying on a metal plate is him taking a magic carpet ride.That is a metaphor and a myth. If the story didn't actually happen, but is representing something else that did, then it is a myth. So, they were placed on earth by god. When the angel Gabriel visited Mary, did that necessitate that they weren't on Earth either? I don't see why that has to be. If Eden was on earth then they would just be going to a different part of earth. Well, that's because its a myth. It could just be god refering to himself in first-person plural for no particular reason, some kind of cliche, or it could be referring to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (but that's a stretch). Right, it resembles a myth. No, that makes it more of a myth. Its clearly not describing something that actually happened as written, ergo myth. No, they're just two seperate stories that contradict each other.

The question is not whether a metaphor can be not-a-myth, but whether if it always is. You changing my metaphor into non-myth does not mean that it cannot be one. Surrealism implies mythology. If it’s not here on Earth, and we're talkin' 'bout man, then its mythological. Where else can we find man? Just in some "what ifs"? That's myth! And upon examination, the textual specifications are determined to be mythical. They're not the most superior; there's much better writings. They contain both inaccuracies and downright falsehoods. That's ridiculous. They were written at different times by different authors, as indicated by the texts themselves. That's quite the spin... You hafta assume the premise to come to that conclusion. The "chapters" were a later invention... The texts aren't like you describe them. You're employing a post-hoc rationalization here. This here is apologetics. You're playing the game of "let see if I can twist the text into something scientifically meaningful". You'll always be able to do that, with enough twisting, but that doesn't mean that that is what the text is saying. There's still the possibility that its just wrong. If you're just assuming its right in the first place, than you can make whatever up to make it fit. That is no indication of what the text is actually saying. But you're just looking for consistencies in your own particular fairy tale. That you can develop them, with your own particular spins on the text, does not imply any sense of veracity. No, it’s called "honesty". There's nothing neither magical nor pristine, about the text in Genesis. It contains the error and imprecision that we'd expect from writers from that time. Different authors, eh? Look: the topic is "The Importance of Original Sin"What is the importance of Original Sin to you and your particular brand of faith? I suppose that the accuracies of these particular books of the Bible are important to the discussion, but we should be getting somewhere...Do you think the events in Genesis actually happened?
Do you think they’re important to Judaism? To Christianity? How an why?

Well there you go, you don't think Original Sin is important at all.The underlying reason that christians pose this impossible demand, is so that you will be convinced that you really need what they are selling. You just can't do it without what they have to offer. At face value, it seems dishonest, but they actually believe it themselves... they think they're helping others with it. So what about the importance of Origin Sin that is important to some flavors of christianity? Where do they go wrong in identifying and employing it? How and why did it come about in the first place?

I call shenanigans. You've just twisted that story to fit with what you want it to say.Thomas just stuck his finger in the hole in Jesus' hands. You can't get any more direct proof than that. Thomas had no choice to believe, it was proven to him instead.I can't believe that you'd take something so blatantly obvious and turn it completely around to say exactly the opposite of what it is saying.That's pretty messed up.

I just can't stand the way you "read" the Bible. All you do is take a belief of your's that you already hold, and the spin the passages in the Bible to say what you want them to say. You have no consistency or logic in the way you do this.If the Bible is talking about a group of people, and you don't want yourself to be subjected to what it says, then you say that its talking to just that group and not you. If the Bible is talking about a group of people, and you want other people to be inlcuded in that group, then you say that its not just talking about that group and it referring to everybody.Anybody who can take the message of Jesus, a man who charged people to sell their belonging, get off their butts, and follow him... a man who spent his life doing things for people and actively trying to help, anybody who can say that that guy's message was to just hold a particular belief about him, well, I guess they could say and believe anything.Its also very telling that you take the writing of Paul as trumping the words that came directly from Jesus, himself. I guess, anything you have to do to keep that Salvation by Faith dogma up and running is what you're going to do, even if it means going directly against what Jesus preached. You should stop calling yourself a Christian and start calling yourself a Biblian. Horrible interpretation. You're only interpreting it that way because you're trying to uphold you Salvation by Faith dogma.Jeremiah was writing to the Jews who were in Babylonian exhile. He was kinda pissed off at them. That passage has nothing to do with Original Sin, its talking about how the Jews have been naughty lately, they've been "accustomed" to doing evil, not born into it from Adam.Here's the surrounding text, you dirty quote miner:

quote:

---

20 Look up and see
those who are coming from the north.
Where is the flock that was entrusted to you,
the sheep of which you boasted?
21 What will you say when the Lord sets over you
those you cultivated as your special allies?
Will not pain grip you
like that of a woman in labor?
22 And if you ask yourself,
Why has this happened to me?
it is because of your many sins
that your skirts have been torn off
and your body mistreated.
23 Can an Ethiopian change his skin
or a leopard its spots?
Neither can you do good
who are accustomed to doing evil.
24 I will scatter you like chaff
driven by the desert wind.
25 This is your lot,
the portion I have decreed for you,
declares the Lord,
because you have forgotten me
and trusted in false gods.
26 I will pull up your skirts over your face
that your shame may be seen
27 your adulteries and lustful neighings,
your shameless prostitution!
I have seen your detestable acts
on the hills and in the fields.
Woe to you, Jerusalem!
How long will you be unclean?

---

He's talking specifically to "Jerusalem" and he's talking about particualr evil acts they've committed and become accustomed to. It has nothing at all to do with Original Sin. But at least we get to see the lengths you'll go to, the kinds of straws you'll grasp at, to keep spreading your dogma. Its terribly dishonest, I hope you know.

Sure you are. You're lying about it too.In Message 549, you said that Jeremiah 13:23 was about Original Sin. That is a perversion. It is about the behavior of the Jews in Babylonian Exile and has nothing to do with Original Sin. You spun the words to make it say what you want it to say, that is dishonest.We explain to you how it has nothing to do with Original Sin.Then, in Message 553, you go right back to it:

quote:

---

There relevance of Jeremiah 13:23 to the above passage from Paul is that men have a sinning nature so subjective to them that it is compared to the pigmentation of the Cushite's skin and the leopard's spots - totally intrinsic, thoroughly built in, part of their make up.

---

That is a lie. That is not what Jeremiah 13:23 is saying. Its talking about the behavior of the Jews in Babylonian exile.You should read the whole thing and not just quote mine for phrases that sound like what you want to talk about.You could use your exact same tactic to say that the Bible claims that there is no God. I mean, it says so right in Psalm 14:1

quote:

---

There is no God.

---

That's the exact same kind of argument you are making.