Original Sin Contradiction

[Kakumei]

The entire Christian religion is based around the idea of sin, repayment, and forgiveness. A lot of this hinges on the original sin, which gives an explanation as to why we have free will and are sinners.

But the original sin is a contradiction in itself. The bible states that once Adam and Eve ate from the tree, "then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loinclothes for themselves." Another account says, "see, now the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil".

If man did not know what good and evil were before committing the sin, then man could not possibly be at fault. The accounts could even be interpreted as suggesting that we did not have free will in the Garden of Eden, which would mean that the sin was God's.

And that's just in the first chapter of the bible!

How about a transgression? Remember, they were given 2 laws. Not to eat the fruit and to multiply and replenish the Earth. How could they multiply and replenish the Earth if they didnt realize that they were even naked? Sounds like it was ment to happen one way or another. Live the higher law, and all that. Its just like we are suppost to go to church at the same time we are supposed to help our fellow men. Well, driving to church you spot someone injured on the side of the road and needs help. Do you go to church or help them? You help them, its the more important law to keep.

[wyoguy]

Adam and Eve believed the lie over and above the truth, willingly. From the moment they tasted of the fruit, they became enemies of God, in league with Satan, under the power and influence of sin.

God does not lie... the death that he warned of was spiritual, and instant. Look at the change in behavior of A&E after the eating. The fact that they lived, physically, for some 900 years afterward, is testament to how superbly they were constructed. God showed us that physical death is conquerable in His own Son (and Lazarus, amongst others). It is spiritual death that is the most dire of the two. Physical death only brings us to judgement. Spiritual death brings us to eternal judgement.

Of all humans throughout time, it could be said that A&E were the only ones to have had actually free wills. As a result of the fall, all their progeny have been infected with wills that are bent to the dominion of sin. It's not that God is holding us accountable for the actions of A&E, it's that we are sinful by nature due to the fall.

Now... we can curse Adam for this predicament all we want, but I do believe that he is in heaven. God gave him promises after the fall. Those promises Adam believed, and that is what is required for salvation... faith.

[Kakumei]

Adam and Eve believed the lie over and above the truth, willingly. From the moment they tasted of the fruit, they became enemies of God, in league with Satan, under the power and influence of sin.

God does not lie... the death that he warned of was spiritual, and instant. Look at the change in behavior of A&E after the eating. The fact that they lived, physically, for some 900 years afterward, is testament to how superbly they were constructed. God showed us that physical death is conquerable in His own Son (and Lazarus, amongst others). It is spiritual death that is the most dire of the two. Physical death only brings us to judgement. Spiritual death brings us to eternal judgement.

Of all humans throughout time, it could be said that A&E were the only ones to have had actually free wills. As a result of the fall, all their progeny have been infected with wills that are bent to the dominion of sin. It's not that God is holding us accountable for the actions of A&E, it's that we are sinful by nature due to the fall.

Now... we can curse Adam for this predicament all we want, but I do believe that he is in heaven. God gave him promises after the fall. Those promises Adam believed, and that is what is required for salvation... faith.

You seem to have my kinda understanding on this alot. However, I think being in league with satan carries it a little bit to far. I think the only one who was around that time was Cain, which would make alot of sence considering at that point he knew better than to kill.

As for the 900 years of living thing, we cannot be sure that they actually did. Many seem to not realize that the time system was MUCH different back then, and our current time system didnt take place untill during the roman times thanks to geniouses like Archemedes and all them good ol boys.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Coerce:
1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>
3 : to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>

coerce - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

the second definition does include the way you are using the word coerce but still going back to the situation i brought up earlier if the bank robber persuaded the clerk to open a safe without the use of force he would still be liable for the missing money.

How do you persuade someone to do something without the use of force? If you are persuading someone to do something, then force is involved. And if you have persuaded that person or thing, then force was used. The argument that moved the clerk to open the safe is in itself a force.

and if someone talked me into breaking into your house and stealing your things the "he told me to do it" defense would not hold up.

And in many cases it shouldn’t.

the law says that i should not do it or i will suffer x numbers of years in jail and now i must suffer that sentence for my crime.

True

are children not responsible for their actions? are they not bound to act on causation just like the rest of us.

Not in our society they are not. And of course, this is why Tycoon and the rest can’t understand why Adam and Eve were held responsible for their disobedience. Our children are no longer held accountable for their action.

God told Adam and Eve that if they ate from the tree that they would die. They knew what they were told to do and the consequences of disobedience.

Again, true. But those who want an excuse to discredit the Bible and frame God as {evil} love to ignore that fact.

I concede this point because eventually (930 freaking years later, Gen5:5) they died. This is like saying " eat that Hotdog and you will die" leaving out the part that you COULD have lived forever, but instead, you will die in 60 years. So it wasn't a lie, it was an incomplete truth....

1. Again, God did not leave any parts out. He told them when they were going to die. What you see years later as Death, is the final stage of a process which begins years earlier. The man who has an incurable disease may live for 5 to 10 additional years with his disease. But as he lives with that disease, the process of Death is already at work.
2. Adam and Eve were already living forever.
3. To purposefully tell an incomplete truth is to lie.

Oh I get it, so Prez Clinton DIDN"T have sex with that woman either.

That’s what he says.

930 years later....

Did you ever take the time to actually examine the preceding verses that were located in the area of the Bible that tells you that Adam lived for 930 years?

Genesis 5:1 This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Let’s see, God tells them that they will die if they ate the fruit of the tree, and yet, you are of the opinion that he didn’t disclose all the information that they needed to make a {sound} decision?
Don't eat that Hotdog, or surely you will die too. (I won't tell you it will take 60 years.) Uhhhh that fat that it would take 930 years to die maybe???? The government tells me I'm gonna die because I smoke cigarettes, they don't tell me that it could be as soon as I smoke or that I could live to 80 years old before I die... yet they don't outlaw cigarettes for my protection. I've got news for them.... nobody gets out of this life alive. Did god tell them that if they don't eat from that tree they could live forever? NO!!

Evidently? thats a good rebuttal LOL..... How can death not be a good thing? Or a bad thing for that matter? I thought the whole idea was to eventually get to the big house in the sky? Evidently not, huh?


Lack of knowledge of a subject = ignorance of that subject. I'm ignorant of nuclear physics.

In regards to their punishment or the consequences of their actions, what were they ignorant about?

Lets not forget that this god supposedly knows all, he was setting up A&E for failure and knew they would fail when he made a talking snake and not disclosing the disclaimer that they would die, 930 years later. Yet people still worship this Clinton of the skies.

And your point? Everyday man makes and invents products that he knows will eventually fail, and yet, he still makes them and is worshiped. What is your point? You have no problem worshipping men who create products which are known to fail.

2. You are arguing a moot point in regards to the time of their death. Go and study what death means. Adam and Eve immediately died after they ate of the fruit. There is more to death than meets the eye.

3. Where does the Bible state that Adam and Eve died 930 years after eating of the tree.

4. God was actually setting them up for their continued success.

nowhere that I am aware of does it say that god created the snake.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Genesis 4 clearly shows that ' other people ' not related to Adam and Eve we're living at the time of Cain and Abel. Apparently entire communities.


What do these things have in common? It has been hypothesized that the earliest form of the Hebrew beliefs were very similar to those of the Persians, the Magi ( Zoroastrianism/Zarathustrianism ) where by there was a dualistic system of a good god and it's counterpart the evil god...and they competed and had their own people.

This would to some extent explain both the snake and the people living who apparently were not related to Adam, Eve, Cain, or Abel.

We can also assume that they were not related for other obvious reasons...such as the bible clearly has an interest in showing lineage...and no where in scripture is it explained where these ' other people ' came from.

Or maybe even Adam and Eve where themselves an entire community or a series of entire communities?

(Gen 1) 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.


Gen 4 is part of the other creation story that isn't exactly like the first creation story. This is more along the lines of Gen 2, not Gen 1. Remember that Adam lived (even after eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil) for 930 years, plenty of time to make more babies. Not ALL incestual babies are born with birth defects and abnormalities and would eventually produce enough healthy off spring to make more healthy off-spring.

Except this is only conjecture without any support other than "this could be an explanation". It would be wise to reconcile the two creation stories first. And yes i know some apologists have tried, yet they are unable to convince me.

Again, question: Where does the Bible state that Adam and Eve died 930 years later after eating of the tree of knowledge?

And you know what happens when you ASSuME. :) Theists of all cultures assume its their god that exists. They can't all be right, but they can certainly all be wrong.

No bias there. So, in your opinion, what would make them all {wrong?} What would make it certain that they were all {wrong?}

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

The optimum word being “mayest,” in that it was allowed, not that it was obligatory; because something is allowed doesn’t mean it has taken place and there is no reason to assume that they had eaten of the tree of life beyond mere speculation.

Question: What do you believe kept Adam and Eve alive?

Had they already eaten of the tree of life they would already have achieved immortality which would make nonsense of God’s concern that they would do so.

Does anybody ever actually study the Bible anymore? Walrus, they were already immortal. They were already exempt from death; immortality ends with the disobedience of God’s commandment. They wouldn’t die until after they ate of the tree which they were commanded not to eat from. So, the truth of the matter is that, Adam and Eve would have not died if they had not eaten from the tree.

Again, examine the contract:

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


So again, as long as they did not break the agreement, Adam and Eve could eat from the tree and live.

This snippet right here shows the fine line between responsible and not responsible. One cannot choose between right and wrong when one doesn't understand the which is which, and thus cannot be held accountable.

Please, says who? This statement is quite comical. The power or ability to choose and your understanding of right and wrong are separate issues. Ignorance does not preclude you from choosing. Sleepwalkers have the ability to while sleepwalking. People choose everyday without understanding what they are choosing. Who’s fault is that? Are we not to hold people accountable just because they claim “ignorance?”

2. Contrary to popular belief, everybody comprehends right and wrong.

Being the cause of something bad doesn't make a person bad, they can be held answerable, but so long as their answer is truthfully that they did not understand, they cannot be honestly held responsible.

Again, knowledge is not a prerequisite for responsibility. One can be held responsible for committing an act that they did not understand. You can be ignorant and still be the cause of a problem. You can be ignorant and still be called on to answer for something that you may have done. It happens everyday in every society.

I'm not even going to waste my time reading all of this, I'm just going to play your definition game. I say that different definitions of good and bad must be observed.

You see, this is the problem that we have here: you won’t waste your time reading what someone else has written, but you expect others to waste their time reading and thinking about the things that you have written.
In other words, from this your comment it is quite obvious that you are not really here to examine and learn from the views of others. Instead, while using the guise of debate, you and many others are just here trying to shove your own dogmatic and biased opinions down the throats of all the other patrons.

Hey, but guess what? I will waste my time with the rest of your post and the rest of this thread.

When God supposedly spoke of good and evil, the definition of good that applied was "morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious".

When the story spoke of the tree as being good, the definition of good that applied was "of high quality".

Question: Where in Genesis does it tell you that the tree was {good?} Please point the verse or verses out?

When God supposedly spoke of good and evil, the definition of evil that applied was "having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible".

The avoidance of death that Adam and Eve exhibited shows that they viewed it simply as "causing or liable to cause sickness or ill health; injurious or harmful". All animals have the instinct to survive, that does not mean they understand death as good or evil.

Then why do they wish to survive? Is not the seeing of death as {good} or {evil} part of the instinct to survive?

Well this is clearly not true in the case of Adam and Eve, who chose to trust a talking serpent over your supposed God.

And what does that have to do with your erroneous statement that says that one has to lack something before they can acquire it? What does trusting the serpent have to do with that belief? What does this response have to do with that belief?

And you must not forget that the entire scenario was set up by your supposed God.

And?

If perfect and sin are subjective then God cannot be perfect or hold us accountable for sin.

The fact that sin is subjective does not mean that you cannot be held accountable for sinning. It just means that you and someone else may have a different definition of what sin is. While God may define sin as one thing, you may define it as something as. Or both of you may even define it as the same thing.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Agreed, that in the story they died, but not for many years later. God must of had a reason to be so obtuse with his "or surely you'll die" rhetoric? What about the rest of it? Why make a serpant that can talk, then make that serpant crawl on its belly for eternity for talking in the first place? Why not explain to them that knowledge of good and evil would result in a future death? Why would knowledge lead to death anyway? Did they die because they gained knowledge or did they die because they were thrown out of the garden? Did the garden have special porperties that kept things alive for ever? If so, where is the rest of the garden?

The whole story reaks of inconsistancies, enough so that even the Catholic Church now considers it allegorical. What I don't understand is, if the Church thinks its only a story, then original sin never occured and we don't need saving because of original sin. We evolved with good and evil and that is no ones fault. Unless of course christians wish to accept that evolution is gods way of making us, then of course its gods fault that we even have knowledge of good and evil.

The problems as I see it are, there were no comedians writing the bible. There's nothing funny.

The whole thing is allegorical, and a mystery. None of it is as it actually happened. God just wants us too stay confused, because if we are mentally alert we won't believe in Him, and He knows this.

[Walrus]

Question: What do you believe kept Adam and Eve alive?

Possibly the same things that keep you and I alive, eating, drinking and breathing.

Does anybody ever actually study the Bible anymore? Walrus, they were already immortal. They were already exempt from death; immortality ends with the disobedience of God’s commandment. They wouldn’t die until after they ate of the tree which they were commanded not to eat from. So, the truth of the matter is that, Adam and Eve would have not died if they had not eaten from the tree.

Again, examine the contract:

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


So again, as long as they did not break the agreement, Adam and Eve could eat from the tree and live.

If Adam and Eve had to eat the fruit of the Tree Of Life to become immortal, then God had made them mortal to begin with. So if they had already eaten from the tree of life and attained immortality, then why was God so worried that they would do so?

[AtheistExile]

"God tells Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If this was the only way they could understand the difference between good and evil, how could they have known that it was wrong to disobey God and eat the fruit?" ~Laurie Lynn

Haven't you ever done something you regret? If so, how does that compare to eating a fruit from the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”? If all sins are the same to God and all sins are disobedience to God, then eating the apple was, by God's own terms, a pedestrian sin.

Yet God condemned all of us to death because of a single sin: the first sin ever sinned. Are you guilty of Eve’s sin? Of course not! No more so than for Hillary Clinton’s sins or for mine. Right off the bat, common sense tells us that the Bible, in Genesis, is preaching a twisted morality. It puts us in opposition to ourselves by claiming our nature is sinful.

I'm no genius but I know a scam when I see one. Biblical sin is God's heads-I-win-tails-you-lose con game: it's a sham used to manipulate and control us via fear and guilt. I reject the neurosis of biblical sin: I believe our nature is basically good but we sometimes make mistakes. Hell, if we believe we're not good, we probably won’t be.

But that’s definitely not what the Bible preaches, is it? We’re ALL unworthy, wretched, sinners.

The Bible says God created the universe and everything in it, including Adam and Eve. He did this in 6 days; executing his allegedly perfect plan on schedule and without a hitch (except that Eve was an afterthought). Adam and Eve were pure and sinless: they had all eternity, in Eden, to bask in God’s glory.

Unless, of course, they pissed him off.

And it doesn’t take much to piss off God. No sir! And second chances? Forget about it. One mistake and you’re history. By the way, all of your offspring, forever, will also be cursed with death. How do you like them apples?

Because of Adam and Eve, we’re all born guilty of “Original Sin”. So much for God’s perfect plan (let’s call it, “plan A”). In fact, Original Sin made the human condition so intractably degenerate that God had to wipe out all life (human or not) with a catastrophic flood so that Noah’s family could start humanity anew, from scratch. This was God’s idea of plan B.

Well guess what? God’s plan B was all for naught. A few thousand years later, humanity had repopulated itself from Noah’s incestuous Ark and – surprise, surprise – was no better than before. I guess that’s what inbreeding gets you. You’d think God would know that.

Time for plan C.

This time, instead of genocide, God chose suicide. He came to Earth personally, as Jesus, to act out a script he divinely inspired, in biblical prophesy, that ended with his own trial, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension back home to heaven.

Why did God do this? Original Sin. Because of Original Sin, we can never be innocent enough for eternal life. We must be forgiven before heaven’s gates will open for us. If you know your dogma, you know Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross so that we may be redeemed from sin (and have everlasting life). Because God eternally cursed mankind with death, he had to provide some means for our redemption. The alternative was to abandon us. Quite a conundrum God put himself in, no?

Basically, God had to “save” us from the curse he imputed upon us to begin with. I’m amazed that so many people don’t see through this preposterous charade. Perhaps the pretzel logic is too tangled for most to unravel. The Bible would have us believe – and doctrine upholds – that we are all miserable wretches who will be granted eternal life only if we love Jesus. Of course, this assumes we can trust God not to resort to a plan D or E or whatever. After all, God is perfect and all-powerful: who’s going to stop him from tossing out plan C if he decides, yet again, that he still hasn’t gotten creation right?

God must regret cursing mankind with death. God is perfect, so we can’t say he makes mistakes; I prefer to say he has regrets. Anyway, I suppose God was hot-headed in his youth; the Old Testament clearly depicts him with a short fuse. So once he imputed death upon us, he couldn’t “un-impute” it. I mean, he’s God! Right? His word is law and immutable. What kind of self-respecting God would change his mind? If God is love, then I guess it’s true that, “love means never having to say you’re sorry”.

Eventually, God found a loophole in his own immutable law: leave mankind cursed but offer individuals an exemption by redemption. Yeah, that’s the ticket! For Christ’s sake – why didn’t God think of plan C before plan B? After all, if redemption is a workable plan, God flooded the Earth and wiped-out humanity for nothing. I hate when that happens!

From Original Sin to redemption, the story twists a pretzel-logic plot of servile spiritual entrapment, with a theme of self-loathing morality.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think the Supreme Being should be an elected position. Surely we can put somebody with more compassion and foresight onto the throne of the Ruler of the Universe. At least, if we elect poorly, we can vote for a replacement next time.

[GeminiBrian]

Good post, AE...

Then again, one can't help wondering why God needs to go through this mad charade at all - when, I imagine, he could simply announce "that's it you miserable sinners - I've decided to forgive you all regardless and see where we go from there".

Not theologically convoluted enough, I guess.

[GeminiBrian]

If Adam and Eve had to eat the fruit of the Tree Of Life to become immortal, then God had made them mortal to begin with. So if they had already eaten from the tree of life and attained immortality, then why was God so worried that they would do so?

What was God thinking of anyway? He creates himself a new race to worship him, and gives them the capacity to think for themselves - to disobey - and the minute they exercise this birthright they cause all humanity to be damned... which was entirely predictable, especially given Adam and Eve's newly-minted status and lack of experience... What a terrible responsibility for a couple of newbies to carry!

A god with an ounce of foresight would have seen this coming - but not Yahweh - not the brightest of gods, then, it seems.

[Walrus]

What was God thinking of anyway? He creates himself a new race to worship him, and gives them the capacity to think for themselves - to disobey - and the minute they exercise this birthright they cause all humanity to be damned... which was entirely predictable, especially given Adam and Eve's newly-minted status and lack of experience... What a terrible responsibility for a couple of newbies to carry!

A god with an ounce of foresight would have seen this coming - but not Yahweh - not the brightest of gods, then, it seems.

Yeah, but did they have capacity to think for themselves. As they hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge they were probably as thick as two short ones. It was the serpent who cajoled them, it was he/she who was to blame.

[GeminiBrian]

Yeah, but did they have capacity to think for themselves. As they hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge they were probably as thick as two short ones. It was the serpent who cajoled them, it was he/she who was to blame.

But then, it was God who placed that wily serpent in the garden... the more you think of it, the more logical it all becomes...