Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"?

Here, I'll fix that for you:

My point is that the concept of Original sin that is marketed by Paul and much of Christianity is simply wrong and not supported by the Bible.

Nobody has addressed my post, way upthread, that original sin is an evil notion, in my opinion about the vilest notion ever concocted by shamans in their ongoing efforts to control the masses.This may be a touch off-topic, but it is very germane to the subject.Does anyone have an opinion on this?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

1. Paul is in the Bible and forms biblical support for the notion marketed by Christianity2. It doesn't matter if the Bible didn't support him in order for the notion to be biblical.3. We've been over the above 2 points and settled on the claim of yours that Genesis contradicts Paul. That ball having been moved to your court lies there still.- I could do the same in support of my view and where would we be. I'd welcome something a bit more specific, something to permit us to plump for your possibility over mine - for without a way of doing that, your attempt at contradiction is stalemated.1. Them like typical kids2. Them as a-moral adults capable of making consequential decision(had they obeyed God no doubt you'd be citing a "first up best dressed" authority figure. Spare me this dot-connecting approach and keep it concrete .. please )- Nor is there anything that shows why such a thing is necessary in making consequential decisions. Telling us that the motorboat has no sail isn't a convincing way to argue the boat incapable of motion.

Well, I have presented my best support for my position, and the audience can decide whether it was sufficient. I have also said you and YOUR chapter of Club Christianity are free to market YOUR version.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I agree that it is wrong and also that it is a horrific idea that has only two purposes, it is effective marketing and an easy cop out, a way to avoid personal responsibility.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Maybe you misunderstood my earlier post (as you seemed to agree with it).
Could you explain these consequential decisions?

quote:

---

Gen2 16 And the LORD God commanded
the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will
surely die."

---

quote:

---

Gen3 4 "You will not surely die,"
the serpent said to the woman. 5
"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and
you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

---

Person A [God] tells you that if you eat an apple then an unpleasant thing will happen.
Person B [the serpent] tells you that if you eat an apple then a pleasant thing will happen.How exactly do Adam and Eve make a decision?Edited by Panda, : added Jar quote

Hi jar, Are you saying a man that had enough knowledge to name all the creatures brought to him to name would not have enough knowledge to understand a direct command?Just wondering.I remember my grandmother telling me not to touch the red hot sides of the heater because if I did it would burn me.Had I obeyed my grandmother I would not have a scar on my middle finger of my right hand today.Had that man not disobey God there would be no sin on the earth.Paul tells us that by that man sin entered into the world.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

As a little child I named all the animals, the flutterbys, the rollies, the wigglers. the teweets, the wentthatways...And yes, they did not have the knowledge, the tools, the capabilities to know to obey one direct command over another or obey one authority figure over another.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Why would you think that it takes some great intelligence to make up names for things?

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

You, I, and everyone else are capable of doing lots of things that we are not inclined to do. As I read the Bible, Adam was created capable of sin, but not with an irresistible inclination to sin. He had a choice, and he made the wrong one. OK, it seems my use of the word "state" was misleading. Your usage is more standard, but that's not how I was using the term.So change "state" to "condition," "character," or "nature" in my quote above. Paul seems to use the word "sin" in two different ways. One is to refer to individual sinful actions. The other is to refer to a sinful condition, nature, character, or propensity.I don't believe that Adam is portrayed as originally having a sinful nature; he was created innocent. His sin was not inevitable; he had a choice.

quote:

---

But they did choose to obey, they obeyed the most recent authority figure.

​

You seem to expect them to understand that it is right to obey the God character in the story but wrong to obey the serpent character in the story.

​

Until after they gained the knowledge and capability to distinguish right from wrong, they were incapable of mak9ing the decisions you seem to expect.
  —jar

---

To continue your "child" analogy, God is analogous to the loving father who spends time with his children and cares for them. They know him well and should trust him: The serpent is analogous to an evil adult who tries to prey on children. He twists the wording of God's prohibition, confuses Eve about what God has said, then questions God's motives.Like children today, Adam and Eve should have trusted the loving parent who they knew. Instead, they listened to the evil predator who they did not know. Even though a child can't discern the motivations or intentions of an evil predator, he can trust his loving parent. The Genesis account seems to be portrayed more as an issue of trust than as an issue of needing to discern right from wrong.

quote:

---

Nor is there anything in the story that supports some original sin that then was passed down generation to generation.

​

There were consequences, and those consequences are listed, but none of the listed consequences involves some inherited sin.
  —jar

---

Are you sure? Have you read Genesis recently?The literary flow of the book seems to say that Adam and Eve unleashed a series of problems that only got worse and worse. First one of their sons killed another. Then civilization continued to go downhill until God wiped them out and started over. But it soon started downhill again. So God called out a small group to work with more directly.Note that part of the curse was: and just before Cain killed Abel, God told him: The Hebrew doesn't render well in many translations, but the author of Genesis uses the same Hebrew wording in both places. Eve would have a controlling desire for Adam; sin had a controlling desire for Cain. The author is intentionally and pointedly tying Cain's sin back to the curse on Eve.And look at the descriptions of the offspring in Gen 5: Adam was made in God's likeness. But Adam's son isn't said to be in God's likeness; he is in Adam's likeness. Why the change in wording? I believe the author is implying that Adam's nature has changed since his original creation. Seth is created like Adam after the Fall, not like Adam originally was.These details imply ongoing effects to mankind as a result of Adam's sin. And the overall literary flow of Genesis says that Adam and Eve opened a "Pandora's box" that they could not close. Genesis alone doesn't give us Paul's full teaching on original sin, but it seems to have contributed to his development of the doctrine.

Just checking that I'm not missing something. There is only one consequential decision to be made. There are two things to choose from (the minimum required to make one consequential decision) Like I said, I don't know the how. If I was to suppose man a machine who has been determined by initial conditions (whether divine or naturalistically) then I would say the 'how' connects to the intitial conditions. But seeing as I (nor I suspect anyone else) don't suppose that we are ultimately determined, I can't say.In so far as I can envisage it, I see Adam as a sphere, positioned at the fulcrum of a see-saw. On the one end is the weight of the prohibition. On the other, the weight of the enticement. Assuming both weights equal, the see-saw remains horizonal and Adam remains in the middle. He obtains neither the consequences of the prohibition nor the consequences of the enticement. The choice remains to be made.Now he wants the consequences of the enticement but wants to avoid the consequences of the prohibition. And so a tension is built up pushing for an act on his part. One way to achieve what he wants is to suppress the truth about the prohibition. To remove it's restraining power by opting for the vehicle offered by the serpent "did God really say (by which ne meant: "did God really mean")Once that's done, the weight of the prohibition falls off the see-saw, the see-saw tips over and sphereAdam rolls down to the consequences of disobedience.But that doesn't get to the apex which is "why did Adam will this to be?" The answer appears to halt at "it was his will" without the possibility of penetrating futher. But I'm open to non-determined suggestions-It might be better to start a new thread on this if you want to progress (although I don't see how progress can be made myself). It's certainly a topic in need of an answer but is off topic here.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I see Adam as a person who is given contradictory information.
Unless Adam suspects deceit, he will act on the most recent information.
(If you hear an 'attack warning' and then you here an 'all clear' signal, you would act on the second message.)
I see no way for Adam to be capable of suspecting fowl-play. Yes, this would be the result of a 'choice' situation. But as I describe above: there is no choice required.
Unless Adam/Eve understand that snakes can't be trusted, then they should go by the most recent information. Since Original Sin is firmly rooted the decision made by Adam/Eve, aren't discussions regarding this decision on-topic?

quote:

---

I don't believe that Adam is portrayed as originally having a sinful nature; he was created innocent. His sin was not inevitable; he had a choice.

---

Inevitable means incapable of being avoided or evaded. If one doesn't know the rules, then yes, it would be difficult to avoid disobedience. Adam knew the rule so he had the means to avoid. The Hebrews had rules, so they did have the means to avoid disobedience.If sin is inevitable then no one can ever be righteous, but the Bible writers present us with righteous people. When one behaves correctly, they are righteous. Noah was righteous in his time.The A&E story doesn't present any change in Adam's nature. There is a difference in his knowledge, but not his nature or propensity to sin.I think Edgar Goodspeed says it up better than I can. Of course if we look at today, Christians have a choice just like Adam and still sin in spite of their faith.

Whilst I agree Adam is given contradictory information and understands that to be the case, I don't see how your conclusion follows from it. An all clear signal isn't understood as a contradictory thing but is instead, understood to be something to be expected at some point following a warning signal. An all clear signla would be a contradictory thing if issued whilst bombs where still falling.Consider God and the serpent sitting side by side. God says "it's dangerous out there" the serpent then says "it's safe out there". Does the fact that the serpent speaks later mean Eve should side with the serpent. I don't see how that works.- No problem. A mod might be along. Or might not be. We'll see.Edited by iano, : No reason given.