Original Sin Contradiction

[Tycoon]

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!

[Devil's Advocate]

No, the tree of good and evil didn't mean good and evil. It meant knowledge of everything.

[ItsDarts]

No, the tree of good and evil didn't mean good and evil. It meant knowledge of everything.

If I'm not mistaken, it was " the tree of knowledge of good and evil", not the tree of all knowledge, since it's obvious there is a lot we don't know.

[Night]

Dream on white boy
Dream on black girl
To wake up to a brand new day
And find your dreams have washed away

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

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!

1. First of all, you are making the mistake of assuming that knowledge is a prerequisite for {fault.} One does not have to know to be at {fault.} For example, the immigrant who causes a car accident because he or she was not aware that they were supposed to stop at the red light is still at fault for causing the accident. Their lack of knowledge regarding the driving law does not erase the fact that they ran a red light and crashed into someone else.

So, {ignorance} does not destroy {fault.}

2. It is impossible not to know any {good} or {evil.} Your very survival is predicated on your knowledge of {good} and evil.

3. How do the accounts suggest that they did not have free will? They were given two choices: eat the fruit or don’t eat the fruit. Was it not their will to eat the fruit? Who made them eat the fruit?

Where is the contradiction?

[ItsDarts]

who made/ created the "talking serpant"? Who lied and said "surely you will die" if you eat the fruit? Who said you won't die? Now explain why A&E would be at fault? Who didn't die when they ate the fruit? God didn't disclose all the information they needed to make a sound decision.

[Jinei]

2. It is impossible not to know any {good} or {evil.} Your very survival is predicated on your knowledge of {good} and evil.

But did A&E know any good and evil before they ate the fruit?

And to be perfectly honest, I would have eaten it too. I would not have remained blissfully ignorant for very long. If God created A&E with such the curiosity and vie for knowledge and art that humans are known for, surely they were set up to eat the fruit from the start.

[Walrus]

who made/ created the "talking serpant"? Who lied and said "surely you will die" if you eat the fruit? Who said you won't die? Now explain why A&E would be at fault? Who didn't die when they ate the fruit? God didn't disclose all the information they needed to make a sound decision.

I think the answer to this is that they did die, in that because of their disobedience they were banished from the Garden of Eden and therefore denied the immortality that they could have obtained from eating of the tree of life.

[Zhavric]

I would argue that Christianity has an unhealthy obsession with sin for a specific reason: it's the magical disease that everyone has and Christianity is selling the "miracle cure" that you don't really need.

Most Christians really haven't thought things through carefully. "We need a literal messiah to atone for a figurative happening... wait, what?"

[ItsDarts]

I think the answer to this is that they did die, in that because of their disobedience they were banished from the Garden of Eden and therefore denied the immortality that they could have obtained from eating of the tree of life.

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.

[Devil's Advocate]

If I'm not mistaken, it was " the tree of knowledge of good and evil", not the tree of all knowledge, since it's obvious there is a lot we don't know.

I was just told that yesterday. It meant more than just good and evil.

[Rog]

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!

The sin was disobedience. God told them not to eat, but they did, that suggest to me A&E knew some level of right and wrong, they ate the fruit of knowledge before they eat the fruit of eternal life, thats why they were kicked out of Eden.