Importance of Original Sin

quote:

---

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

---

How can it be myth when the story is not set on earth? The text says the garden of eden was in a realm not of earth, and Adam was hurled down to earth as a form of punishment. This makes it open to a metaphor or some other rendering. The script is highly complicated and seems to incline in wierd directions - it cannot be read in clear terms this event occured on earth; the portion is very different from the clear and explicit descriptions which are posited as historical or relating to earth.Born of sin is a later Christian take on the Hebrew bible. It has some problems. Firstly, it contradicts the Hebrew laws said to be given directly, in 'open' revelation, to millions of people, with the injunction NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING FROM THIS BOOK OF LAWS [the text!]. The contradiction especially applies to, 'ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY - THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER'. The NT has got around this by saying the Hebrew laws are fullfilled and no longer applicable. This is very problematic; it is accepted by 2B Christians - but they have never observed or followed those laws, and would be easily inclined to accept such a premise. Not so if a Muslim tells Christians the NT laws are now obsolete.$64 Q: If a Christian imagines himself as a stiff necked Jew who has followed Hebrew laws for 2000 years, even facing existential wars for it - would he accept the NT premise? He did not even after 400 years when Islam emerged.The other issue is, if we are born in sin, then we are innocent of all charges. Its like saying one cannot run because he is born without limbs, and thus guilty. This makes the Hebrew version far more considerate and just, as opposed the hoisting of baggage we were never responsible for.IMHO, there is nothing more pure [sinless] than a new born child or offspring in the universe. It also begs the question, then why is there evil? This may be unrelated; it can be factored in as testings; we see positive and negative everyplace we look in the universe. The scenario predates and is independent of life. Bad things do happen to good people; it may not relate to pre-life.Lastly, the NT version is open to great corruption and blackmail: its difficult to reject salvation and risk eternal hell?. The NT posits its proof as inapplicable and as an affront to question. Its very problematic..

quote:

---

The text says the garden of eden was in a realm not of earth, and Adam was hurled down to earth as a form of punishment.

​

Chapters and verses please. I've never seen that in the text.

quote:

---

Being not set on Earth would make it more of a myth

---

​

A metaphor is never a myth. It can represent itself as a mirror reflection of a syndrome which overides the reality. Here, the reality can be myth but the message of the syndrome is real.

---

quote:

---

3/22 And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.' 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way to the tree of life. {S}

---

Cherubim are spiritual beings - angels, not of earth or phsycality. Being sent from Eden to till the land = sent to earth. The tree of life - no such tree here. And who does 'us' refer to - when no other humans existed? It does not seem straight forward to me or resembling any historical writings. It is not myth because of what seems an intentionally complicated passage which is open to numerous other readings and its contradictions of other items. The talking snake, as well as the indcation the snake once had legs and was upright [then punished to crawl] appear complicated and thus not mythical. It is thus also of a realm where there was no labor pains for women at one time; men never had to toil from their brows and no death occured. These may just be the most heady writings of all; its dark and wonderous.Another multi-directional verse is: 'MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM".I read the 'THEM' refering to the first male and female human, and that they were a dual-gendered entity which was split later on. Some may read it as applying to humans in general. The latter seems wrong because no other humans existed when Adam emerged.

quote:

---

Magneto flying on a metal plate is him taking a magic carpet ride.

​

That is a metaphor and a myth.

---

Your behavior is akin to Magneto flying on a metal plate is him taking a magic carpet ride.A metaphor is now not a myth.

quote:

---

If Eden was on earth

---

Its surreal; not explicit as the rest of the text. Eden becomes a place other than earth here, with no identifiable geographical location [e.g. the Tigris river; mount Ararat; etc]. Where then is Eden - is it a paradisical reference? Is it where one finds "the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"?It says that the man was removed from a place where there is no death, which means not here on earth or this universe:

quote:

---

"lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.' 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. "

---

One cannot dismiss as myth before examiing the textual specifications.

quote:

---

No, they're just two seperate stories that contradict each other.

---

That is a inferior view of what is the most superior writings humanity possesses. There are no two seperate contradicting stores: the first one describes an abstract creational description of the specie, where adam is not a pronoun but a human; the second is when the human specie reference becomes a person [not just a human], with a 'name' - the word 'name' is now used for the first time, this occuring when a name is required as distinguising between humans, but not before ['And the man called his wife's name Eve']. This makes it a precise continuation of both chapters. Of note how ch.2 begins:"1 And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. "2 And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made"Aligns exactly and only with the last verse of the preceding ch.1. [creation described therein was completed]"4 These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. "Describes ch. 1. , which is about the creation of the universe, including this planet, which now becomes the focus. No other reading is possible; it cannot be said any other way. Of note not a single new entity is included because nothing else was yet described.The text is deceptively simple, and in fact very pristine and exacting as in a technical mathemtcal mode. Note that it says the life forms were completed but were yet not alive. When carefully considered, this is the only way is can happen. Its like a car: it is completed yet it does not drive: why? Because it needs an external trigger from an ignition key and a car driver! So the completed life forms were yet not animated - they needed a triger ignition key. So too, pineapples were completed yet they did not re-produce other pineapples till this happened:5 No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground"The above refers to the life cycle and the sustainence factors to keep it continuing. Note, a shrub is an outgrowth which pops up when reproduction occurs. Reproduction requires trigger factors, and examples are given of a life cycle: the rains and the tiller.Its a folly, if not sheer ignorence, to deem the text less than pristine and technical to the greater measure. Consider the term 'create' - what actually does this mean? Why does it appear only in the first creation chpter, then becomes 'formed' for the rest of the entire five books? Its not a typo. Create = something from nothing; formed = something from something else. There is nothing mythical about it.Consider the mathemtical precision embedded in the text. what does 'REMEMBER TO OBSERVE "THIS" DAY AS THE SABBATH' mean? The 'THIS DAY' says that statement was made on a Sabbath; if one calculates all the millions of numbers, dates and genealogies in the 3000 year span of the history of the Hebrew bible, they will find that indeed that day was a Sabbath. Can a super PC perform such a feat? But can ancient peoples? No. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The phrase "These are the generations" appear 10 times in the book of Genesis. 2:4, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25 19, 36:1, 36:9, 37:2, and one time in Ruth 4:18.

​

None of them have the generations listed before the statement, "These are the generations".

​

Not even 2:4 as you assert. The generations or history of the heaven and the Earth follow the statement, "These are the generations".

​

But then maybe you have an explanation why in the one instance in Genesis 2:4 the order would be reversed.

​

God Bless,

---

In 2:4 there were no generations prior to it; unlike the rest which are historical follow-up summaries. That is how accurate and technical this text is - one has to keep up with it! Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

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.

---

I exposed your contradiction; now you defend from it.

quote:

---

Its surreal; not explicit as the rest of the text.

​

Surrealism implies mythology.

---

'implies' implies it need not imply as mythology.

quote:

---

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!

---

The verse may not be talking about man on earth, as I've been proposing from the texts when read carefully; also the reason this cannot be simply 'myth' - it differs in kind from head bashing deitings battling for supremecy: at all times a universe maker is the constant throughout the text. Only the completed construct became man. While I have no idea what the 'where else' relates to, or why the term 'Let US [Plural] make man in OUR image' - and the term 'Created man' is again in the singular, this in no way can be conclusively decided as in this realm; such a conclusion does not adhere to the text. It is a profound issue, making where we go after death [if anywhere], as less vital to know than where we come from. We know that the first human could not have come from the seed of two host parents, rendering it different from all other humans as its source point. The text is not simple or myth, though it may be too complex for our current generation's knowledge quocient.

quote:

---

And upon examination, the textual specifications are determined to be mythical.

---

Including the aerial vew descriptions of four historical rivers in their correct locations stated for the first time?

quote:

---

That is a inferior view of what is the most superior writings humanity possesses.

​

They're not the most superior; there's much better writings. They contain both inaccuracies and downright falsehoods.

---

I have not found any superior elsewhere, even allowing for later writings like Isaiah and Shakespear. The grammar here is epitomized, the shortest distance between two words appear, the most accurate adjectives are applied. Any alteration renders it less grammatically perfect.

quote:

---

There are no two seperate contradicting stores:

​

That's ridiculous. They were written at different times by different authors, as indicated by the texts themselves.

​

the first one describes an abstract creational description of the specie, where adam is not a pronoun but a human; the second is when the human specie reference becomes a person [not just a human], with a 'name' - the word 'name' is now used for the first time, this occuring when a name is required as distinguising between humans, but not before ['And the man called his wife's name Eve']. This makes it a precise continuation of both chapters. Of note how ch.2

​

That's quite the spin... You hafta assume the premise to come to that conclusion.

---

A spin infers there are other readings possible. Name one?

quote:

---

This makes it a precise continuation of both chapters. Of note how ch.2 begins:
"1 And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. "2 And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made"

​

Aligns exactly and only with the last verse of the preceding ch.1. [creation described therein was completed]

​

"4 These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. "

​

Describes Ch. 1. , which is about the creation of the universe, including this planet, which now becomes the focus. No other reading is possible; it cannot be said any other way. Of note not a single new entity is included because nothing else was yet described.

​

The "chapters" were a later invention... The texts aren't like you describe them. You're employing a post-hoc rationalization here.

---

Did I miss your proof these were later invented - by whom - what's their names - was this pre or post-Septuagint translation of 300 BCE? If a 3,700 year document [Book of Esther] speaks of such texts and a temple was already standing then destroyed - was it at this time too the text were re-invented? If volumes of books in the psalms mention Moses numerously, and aligns with the entire five books consistantly - did many writers adjust every verse - and yet maintain the exact same poetic sweep? Why don't you try adding to Shakespear and not be detected? That is far easier a task - Shakespear does not contain brim full dates, periods and genealogies which also have to be matching? How easily the populace accepts a heresay statement without a shred of proof - how easily 1000's of evidences are ignored. What you are saying, if the text were not re-invented - you have an enormous problem! How do you explain the eerie alignment we have no 'NAME' older than Adam - we should have billions, no!

quote:

---

The above refers to the life cycle and the sustainence factors to keep it continuing. Note, a shrub is an outgrowth which pops up when reproduction occurs. Reproduction requires trigger factors, and examples are given of a life cycle: the rains and the tiller.

​

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.

---

There is no input from me other than quoting texts carefully, respecting all words in the verses w/o omissions. On the contrary, all new input is from your own statements, denying all, able to prove nothing, just shoting MYTH!

quote:

---

The above refers to the life cycle and the sustenance factors to keep it continuing. Note, a shrub is an outgrowth which pops up when reproduction occurs. Reproduction requires trigger factors, and examples are given of a life cycle: the rains and the tiller.

​

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.

---

Can one find 'consistancies' when they are not there? Understand that when you use such a term, it goes against you! I make no spins: remember this is about creationism - and everything in the text is consistant with it - that is not a spin. I am not deflecting from the core substance of the text - you are!

quote:

---

Its a folly, if not sheer ignorance, to deem the text less than pristine and technical to the greater measure

​

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.

---

The honesty comes with proof, remember - there is no honesty without consistancy and accuracy of math and history.

quote:

---

Consider the term 'create' - what actually does this mean? Why does it appear only in the first creation chpter, then becomes 'formed' for the rest of the entire five books? Its not a typo.

​

Different authors, eh?

---

No, just the reverse applies. It is absolutely correct that in ch.1 only a technical term like 'create' can apply, while this cannot apply in ch.2. Its called consistancy.

quote:

---

Look: the topic is "The Importance of Original Sin"

---

Nicely backed off. You forget the NT is basing its claim of born in sin by connecting this with the Hebrew bible! I say the NT is incorrect here - how else do we explain this, if not from the text in the Hebrew bible?

quote:

---

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...

---

There is no such thing; its unGodly from the POV it contradicts the laws of the Hebrew bible. Period. It also contradicts all of reality and how humanity operates. The NT has posed an impossible demand which no christian or any other human can accomodate.

quote:

---

Do you think the events in Genesis actually happened?

---

All I can say here is, if it did not happen its antithesis makes less sense. A universe maker for a universe beats jitterbugging quarks banging heads for eons and winning millions of lotteries in one day. Those are correct odds too.

quote:

---

Do you think they’re important to Judaism? To Christianity? How an why?

---

All worldly accepted laws come from the Hebrew bible. The universe works on laws. Its important. Christianity's greatest claim to fame is choosing the Hebrew bible and flicking off Zeus. Uts worthy of applauding and must have been very difficult to do - thus we see numerous residual factors from helenism also in the NT baggage. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Original Sin is a failed, lost case. Check with your local sherrif, your local judge or any bona fide judiciary institution if in doubt. You will find that:ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH [COMMITS A CRIME] IT SHALL PAY - THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER.The insanity persists despite millions of innocent souls being burnt at the stake, giving legitimacy to the greatest crimes within humanity.

quote:

---

But the question remains - What on earth happened to the "very good" man that God created so that all are now transgressors and sinners ?

---

Its the eternal question, and I do not see it resolved with the born in sin doctrine. I also don't read the psalm verse quoted as you do. Why do bad things happen to good people? My take:The factor of choice is given only to humans; the seemingly random bad is the balancing counter to free choice. Where there is no choice - there is no sin - and no merit! Here, the thing which we disdain becomes the only path of salvation. A decent one is greater than an innocent one:'Where a repentant sinner stands - the most rightious cannot'.All have and will sin - this includes the greatest human of all - no, its Moses! Its only what we do thereafter which counts. Therefore, I honestly and sincerely reject born in sin; I do see both positive [good] and negative [bad] being condoned and factored in the equation; I do not accept the notion of satan - none can stand unless the One condones it; I don't accept intermediaries or transit agents: why buy retail when you can get it direct from the manufacturer?In the end, all religions are at best a testings: this means one can be inculcated to believe another is bad - but that is only a testing to see how one turns. I respond to your verse hurling with this counter:Abraham to God, when called upon in a particularly hot desert day while he was assisting some wayward travellers afflicted by the heat:"Sorry, I cannot attend to you now - some people here need my help"And God waited upon Abraham.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, absolutely they believe it, same as other believers do. There is no issue here, and I respect the belief - it is 100% genuine, they would die and kill for it. Its like a mother-child thing. The issue is not even that if one believes it or not - the issue becomes different when they also, as an added bonus item, want to kill others to save them. This becomes problematic, and it is substantially seen in two of the biggest religious groups. Islam is an emulation of medevial Europe.Isabela: "Better to destroy their bodies and save their souls"Gee thanks! That is the problem, Otherwise it makes no dif if they believed in pink zebras.

quote:

---

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?

---

Its always flabbergasted me, to be honest, how they pounce on the Jews with the charge of 'chosen' people. Here, I must admit such a premise is in contradiction of every just laws and appears ungdly. We have already seen, before the law was given in Moses' time, that Jacob was seen as commiting a wrong thing in favoring one of his 12 children - his brothers perpetrated the act of murder as its consequence. So how can this be attributed to the Hebrew God, who commanded laws of equality and equal justice for all?In reality, Christianity got it wriong, as did the Muslims. The Hebrew chosen is a dolled up postman with funny uniforms; its the others who are the VIPS. The chosen is also explained as by example only, not by enforced conversion, not by disdaining others ['Be a light unto the nations'; 'Do not cheat or fool the stranger'; 'Love the stranger'].So lets examine the real bad mode of chosen. How about exclusive kingdom keys, and woe to any who disagree? How about its a blessing to kill the infidels? There is chosen - and there is CHOSEN. Choose one.I do not understand how the most powerful religion, one assigned to be the world's teacher and educator - could also accept such a provision. That it is wrong can be seen in Islam today, also believing the same with equal determination. But the issue is far deeper and very mysterious. Both Christianity and Islam would fall off an abyss if they negated these core doctrines. This makes it very problematic - primarilly for the Jews [everyone hates Jews!] - and then for all humanity itself. The position of the Jews were horrific: they get bashed which ever one they sided with - and worse if they stood neutral and remained as they always were.The answer is blowing in the winds: humanity must operate by majestic laws - not majestic names. This is the only future for humanity, aside from self destruction. This is the message from the greatest recorded event in the universe: Mount Sinai. All that tumbled down were laws.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Even with Jesus and Paul, the idea of original sin is a later concept. They didn't present it so how can their message be weakened when their messages didn't rely on the story anyway?

---

Before you attribute origin sin to a Jew from Judea, you need a shred of proof. Paul does not cut it - he never met Jesus and was a third generation Helenist unceremoniously expelled by the Nazerites. I would better describe original sin as original crime, and it predates Christianity - check some Roman and Greek archives sometime. As we speak, a friend sent this article to me today. I am wondering why these guys are roaming free whistling:

quote:

---

The new-old Jew hatred

​

Current-day anti-Semitism obsessed with concept of Jews as the chosen people
Giulio Meotti
Published: 10.22.11, 13:00

​

The malignant use of the expression chosen Jews is recurring in the latest attacks on Israel made by secular intellectuals, archbishops, mainstream journalists and European politicians.

​

Such vilification inspired historical waves of violence, like the pogroms, the expulsion of the Spanish Jews and Martin Luther’s demonology (the founder of Protestantism argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people but instead the Devil’s people.)

​

Magazine

​

The churches against Israel / Giulio Meotti

​

Christian blood libels revived, with Israel being painted as evil, having no right to exist
Full story

​

Modern-day Jews are not God’s chosen people, the head of Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox Church, Pope Shenouda III, declared recently in a meeting with former US President Jimmy Carter. Do not believe their claims that they are God’s chosen people, because it is not true.

​

It is no longer only Syria that aired a movie against the Chosen Jews or the former prime minister of Malaysia, Mohammad Mahathir, who warned that the Jews must never think they are the chosen people. The obsession for this issue now widely appears in the latest indictments of Israel as an apartheid state and in the legal campaigns against the Law of Return.

​

Recently, Stephen Sizer, a leading British theologian, released a declaration to support the UN Palestinian bid: The New Testament insists the promises God made to Abraham are fulfilled not in the Jewish people but in Jesus and those who acknowledge him. According to Sizer, the Jewish covenant with God is rubbish.

​

Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros, a cleric chosen by Pope Benedict XVI to draft the conclusions of the synod on the Middle East, declared that there is no longer a Jewish chosen people, resurrecting the ancient calumny that the Jews are damned for all time as cosmic exiles. Elias Chacour, the Vatican-approved Catholic Archbishop of Israel, says that we do not believe anymore that the Jews are the Chosen People.

​

Many anti-Semitic comments are based on the concept of Jews as the chosen people. All Jews share a particular gene, that makes them different from other peoples, recently declared German central bank executive Thilo Sarrazin. Christina Patterson attacked the Jews in a column for The Independent: I didn’t realize that a purchase by a goy was a crime to be punished with monosyllabic terseness, or that bus seats were a potential source of contamination, or that road signs, and parking restrictions, were for people who hadn’t been chosen by God.

​

'We call it racism'
Meanwhile, acclaimed Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis told an interviewer that today it is possible to say that this small nation is the root of all evil; it is full of self-importance and evil stubbornness. Asked by his interlocutor, what is it that holds us Jews together? Theodorakis replied, It is the feeling that you are the children of God. That you are the chosen.

​

Elsewhere, European Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht, a former Belgian foreign minister, recently blamed the Jewish lobby and said that there is indeed a belief - it’s difficult to describe it otherwise - among most Jews that they are right. De Gucht’s target was the Jews, not Israeli policies.

​

Jostein Gaarder, author of the literary bestseller Sophie’s World, published an op-ed titled God’s chosen people in the Aftenposten, one of Norway’s major newspapers, in which he declared that Israel has lost its right to exist: We no longer recognize the state of Israel.We don’t believe in the idea of God’s chosen people.To present oneself as God’s chosen people is not just stupid and arrogant, but a crime against humanity. We call it racism.

​

Jos Saramago, the Portuguese writer and Nobel Prize laureate, described the Jews in perfervid terms as contaminated by the monstrous and rooted ‘certitude’ that in this catastrophic and absurd world there exists a people chosen by God and that, consequently, all the actions of an obsessive, psychological, and pathological exclusivist racism are justified.

​

The plot of celebrated British playwright Caryl Churchill’s Seven Jewish Children, which got much acclaim at London’s Royal Court Theater, is built on the Jewish obsession. Churchill’s short play unfolds over seven scenes, beginning, dimly, sometime during the Holocaust and concluding with Israel’s wars. Characters appear as parents of an offstage child, and the dialogue revolves around what the girl should or should not know about her political circumstances as they unfold over the decades.

​

Tell her, says one of the play’s Zionist elders, I wouldn’t care if we wiped them out . . . tell her we’re better haters, tell her we’re chosen people.

​

This is the same delusional lexicon of medieval Jew-hatred. Taken to its logical end, this language suggests that there is only one price the Jews can pay for being accepted by the world: Israel’s elimination. Indeed, this worldwide condemns the Jews to homelessness and humiliation, chosen to walk the earth alone until the end of the days.

​

Giulio Meotti, a journalist with Il Foglio, is the author of the book A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism
The new-old Jew hatred

---

Unless I'm not understanding some heavy duty deep psychosis embedded in two of the biggest religions, what those guys are saying is they want their own versions of CHOSEN as the best chosen, and in the process they also disregard that there is historical rights attached to a group having a place to park - Israel is not a result of some theology - it represents a place were Jews come from and were born and incepted there as a nation. I blame the majority, not the radicals, for such insanity.

So actual in our face events have no impact on the importance of original sin - the theoretical rules its actuality?