Why do I have to inherit Adam and Eve's sin?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

BLESSED
 
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2009 07:39 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;84711 wrote:
I refuse to accept the Adam and Eve story as factual occurance and it makes for a rather weak argument if a metaphor.

To inherit the sin gene as click likes to use would be the equivalent to suffering the sentence of a crime your grandfather committed. It is absurd and ridiculous to place your life into such a mentality.

The ironic thing with him using passing genes as a metaphor is that you can't get the whole human race from two people, because the gene pool is not large enough.

To me the story is bronze age people struggling to explain where human existence came from. Lacking all knowledge of biology and evolution they grasped at straws and came up with a story that has been debunked. It takes a back seat now as a metaphor but even that is weak to say the least.


Dear "Krumple" from Pluto!
Greetings;

You seem to be wise enough to pardon me cause of my Lunacy.Very Happy

NOTE:Avoiding to make a "war" on your Earth,I've decided here to be a Lunatic "humorous"!
I was coming from "Jupiter" to the "Earth" riding a "Camel".
But I don't know why?!
The "Earthly" people deported me to the "Moon",my "Camel" to the "Mars".

I'm chasing the "Camel" right now in this forum!!!
You may help me to find it as soon as possible!!:detective:

Let's be back to the serious discussion you had.
You may pardon but I see the discussion here refers to the philosophy of "science"!


One of my friends is an engineer who calls the relationship between two spheres "gravity"!
The other friend of mine is a poet who calls the gravity "love"!
I'm neither an engineer nor a poet;but I guess "Adam" was falling on the Earth,cause of the Eve's love;
pardon,I meant her apple's gravity!Very Happy:shocked:Very Happy

Since your "grandparents" came to the "Earth" cause of "constipation",your children decided to be back to the "Heaven",through "Diarrhea"!Pardon,:devilish:I meant "Dysentery"!!:poke-eye::big-guns:

SECOND EDITION:
****************
You seem to believe in biology!
Cangratulation;for I'm intersted in "Anthropology"!

Thinking of the situation of the first"evolved baboon" seeking a mate,I guess it was a hard time for the "Scientific Eve" staying several centuries among the passionate apes,to be found finally by an "exact similar mutated baboon",as her "civilized" husband!

.............!:run:Very Happy

Yours/"Blessed Lunatic Wiseman"!
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2009 08:22 am
@BLESSED,
BLESSED;85548 wrote:

One of my friends is an engineer who calls the relationship between two spheres "gravity"!
The other friend of mine is a poet who calls the gravity "love"!
I'm neither an engineer nor a poet;but I guess "Adam" was falling on the Earth,cause of the Eve's love;
pardon,I meant her apple's gravity!Very Happy:shocked:Very Happy


Eve's apple is the awareness that in the domain of femininity, the man is weak like a marshmallow in tempestuous seas. The story of Genesis describes a thunderbolt from heaven that blasts the earth and separates the seas... sending femininity to the periphery of human life.

The price man pays for this elevation from irrationality is that he now works by the sweat of his brow... crushed under the weight of order and definitiveness that was never his natural state.

The story contains a prophecy that in the end, the son of man will prevail: crushing the snake's head while only sustaining a bruised heel. Referring to BLESSED remarks: some people say that this prophecy refers to the return you mentioned.

As to whether people are born atheists... some may experience life that way. The intellect starts making that kind of distinction somewhere along the line. I believe that for some people it happens so early that they don't remember any previous state, while others experience a kind of delayed bloom which allows them to remember... like Goethe said of his childhood: .."half child's play, half God in the heart."
 
prothero
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:45 pm
@Lithium phil,
original sin is alienation and separation from God and nature.
The garden was lost when man began to think he was the purpose of creation not part of creation.
 
Song of Mercy
 
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 03:43 pm
@BLESSED,
Hi Folks I am new and this is my first discussion post.

We do not inherit Adam and Eve's sin. If we did then Jesus would have been guilty at birth. If he had been guilty he could not have been raised from the dead. The act of him rising from the dead was accomplished through his personal innocense, qualifying him for release from death. He clearly did not inherit any sin.

We inherit their nature, or the ability to sin.

If you look at the Jesus type depicted in the story of Daniel in the Lion's Den (Dan 6) what I have asserted is shown.


Song
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 11:10 pm
@Khethil,
Krumple;84862 wrote:
Surely it is not examined in its entirety like other literary works.


Actually, it is. Biblical higher criticism is an immense field of work, for example. And people have been doing textual criticism for centuries - including Thomas Jefferson.

Krumple;84862 wrote:
Yet when Jesus was heading to the chopping block not a single one protested. This is inconsistent behavior, especially if they write about him later as some divine being. I find it hard to believe, even if they were requested to stay out of it.


Yet you admit that Jesus' impact on people (in the stories) was immense, right? According to the texts, he literally heals the blind and lame - don't you imagine someone with enough power to perform such miracles would have enough power to convince his closest disciples to do as they are told?

I don't see inconsistent behavior here at all. If anything, it is further evidence of the disciple's devotion and faith in Jesus, which is perfectly consistent.

Krumple;84862 wrote:
Then on top of that, one of them betrays him. This is obviously not consistent in character either and it is an attempt to bring extra appeal rather than believability. How can you betray someone whom you watched do so many strange, amazing things?


First of all, not all readers think Judas betrays Jesus. Some readers interpret the story as Judas handing Jesus over because Jesus asks him to hand him over to the authorities.

However, taken at popular understanding, you are right - this is an example of inconsistent character. And when that happens in literature, there is a reason. In this case, the reason is obvious - being moral, didactic works, the Gospels exist to instruct. So, you have Judas give in to material desire (the silver coins) which leads to the apparently tragic event (Jesus' death) - the moral of the story being that Jesus' message is more important than worldly good. Recall that Judas feels bad for his decision.

So, given the nature of the Gospels as didactic, this character's inconsistency (if it is that in the first place) is quite understandable and forgivable as a reader because the segment so well establishes a particular lesson - rather, the segment helps to establish the larger theme of the Gospels in a powerful way.

Krumple;84862 wrote:
I find it incredibly hard to believe


And I find it incredibly hard to believe that an old Spaniard would sally forth on horse back at windmills followed by a plump middle aged Spaniard. But sometimes the power in literature is not the believability of the literal details; the impact of the overall work as an explanation of human nature is far more impacting.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 05:11 am
@Lithium phil,
Krumple,

I can't understand why you're taking the effort to analyze the Bible as you would analyze a modern novel. I minored in medieval literature, and if we applied the NY Times Book Review standards of critique to medieval or ancient plot and character development, then you would never have read the Vedas, Gilgamesh, Homer, Virgil, Sophocles, Ovid, Chaucer, the Gawain/Pearl poet, let alone the old or new testaments.

I'm not particularly religious, but to dismiss as easily as you have one of the foundational works of Western literature is silly. The virtual entirety of the literary tradition that comes from Europe is a synthesis of Judeochristian and Classical literature and attitudes, and this began to take place in the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

Furthermore, the old testament was written and compiled over the course of at least a millenium -- the Torah and its contents come from more than a millenium BCE, but the Prophets and the Writings come from much much later. These sections are THE historical narrative of a people that have cultural continuity with today. They were subjects of the Hellenic states following Alexander, and provide a contemporary counterpoint to Greek historiography. There are competing attitudes in the Bible as well -- the author(s) of Ezra/Nehemiah had different political attitudes from the author of Chronicles.

The Bible is bar none THE clearest view we have to the history, the attitudes, and the ideas of the ancient world of its place and time, and it's foundational to even the judgement by which you're dismissing it. You may think it's overrated, but it took a few thousand years of cultural progress before we got Dostoyevsky and Dickens.
 
Johnny Fresh
 
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2009 05:37 pm
@Song of Mercy,
Song of Mercy;97297 wrote:
Hi Folks I am new and this is my first discussion post.

We do not inherit Adam and Eve's sin. If we did then Jesus would have been guilty at birth. If he had been guilty he could not have been raised from the dead. The act of him rising from the dead was accomplished through his personal innocense, qualifying him for release from death. He clearly did not inherit any sin.

We inherit their nature, or the ability to sin.

If you look at the Jesus type depicted in the story of Daniel in the Lion's Den (Dan 6) what I have asserted is shown.


Song


yes, but Jesus's father was god
 
prothero
 
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2009 07:35 pm
@Johnny Fresh,
Johnny Fresh;99102 wrote:
yes, but Jesus's father was god

"Our father, who art in heaven" God is everyones father.
It took 300 years to elevate Jesus to divine status.
It took a little longer still for the doctirne of "original sin" to appear.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 04:04 am
@prothero,
Krumple;84832 wrote:
It is obvious why the bible makes it into literature courses, but it's not for it's literature but instead for it's religious bias. Do you ever see the course for the literature of the Pali cannon? No, why? Because Christians do not support the "promotion" of other religious texts.


But other religious texts are taught. I was taught Gilgamesh in my first lit class. The Pali cannon is not neglected if one decides to study it's cultural origins.

Explain again the dearth of literary merit in Daniel.

You may bot encounter certain works in the 1000 level classes, but beyond, they are certainly relevant. Besides, teachers love to have students reference such works - every time I've referenced Thurman I've received an A for the paper.
 
manfred
 
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 06:13 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Answer for origional post.
That whole god knows everything you have or will ever do before hand is a real bummer when it comes to freewill.So i guess god knew i would never except an idea as ludicrous as the messiah,therefor i was condemned to hell before i was even born.Christianity,you guys are just silly.
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 06:32 am
@Lithium phil,
Lithium;84423 wrote:
Why did I have to inherit Adam and Eve's punishment of eating from the tree, when no decision (excluding the "earthly Jesus") from any other person in my life can make an impact on whether I will able to go to heaven? After all, we should all have free will... right? Ponders: Shouldn't I have had the choice of whether I wanted to live this kind of life? Why is Adam and Eve's decision placed on a higher level of importance? Did God deceive man? Meaning, if he knows every decision one will make, then why did he plant the tree in the first place. Isn't this just as bad as Satan tempting man?

Believe it or not, this question put me on the path to philosophy before I had ever went to school...It is easy to judge God as unfair, even evil; but if we accept God, then God is all, and above the moral notions we have of Good and Evil judged by human conditions...
 
Sapiens Fossor
 
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2009 07:47 pm
@Lithium phil,
By planting the tree, it was test. I suppose God knew we were going to fail but if we are created in God's image and we hope then God must hope too. We failed the test so God sent Jesus to save us from our sins. As to your question about why should you have to inherit Adam and Eve's sin, if you had been in the garden and innocent of all evil as they were you probably would've eaten from the tree just out of curiosity as they did. Their sin is yours because you, even if you won't admit it, would've done the exact same thing.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2009 09:16 pm
@Sapiens Fossor,
Sapiens Fossor;104186 wrote:
By planting the tree, it was test. I suppose God knew we were going to fail but if we are created in God's image and we hope then God must hope too. We failed the test so God sent Jesus to save us from our sins. As to your question about why should you have to inherit Adam and Eve's sin, if you had been in the garden and innocent of all evil as they were you probably would've eaten from the tree just out of curiosity as they did. Their sin is yours because you, even if you won't admit it, would've done the exact same thing.

You know that is all a bunch of hooey... Life is suffering, and usually for a good time; and people needed to be able to offer an explanation for the situation we find ourselves in as children... It is not fair... Well it must be fair, because if we cannot count on fairness from God we will never strike a bargain with him... So, a sin is contrived that explains everything from the pain of childbirth to the love of husband and wife...It was not God's unfairness, but our sin...In one sense at least, the myth is correct...We ahve no one to blame but ourselves... All other pain in endurable, but the pain we suffer at the hands of our fellow man pushes us nearer and nearer to our extinction...And that is hard to take...
 
Shostakovich phil
 
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 12:15 am
@Lithium phil,
Lithium;84423 wrote:
Why did I have to inherit Adam and Eve's punishment of eating from the tree, when no decision (excluding the "earthly Jesus") from any other person in my life can make an impact on whether I will able to go to heaven? After all, we should all have free will... right? Ponders: Shouldn't I have had the choice of whether I wanted to live this kind of life? Why is Adam and Eve's decision placed on a higher level of importance? Did God deceive man? Meaning, if he knows every decision one will make, then why did he plant the tree in the first place. Isn't this just as bad as Satan tempting man?


This is a highly potent and insightful queston, is it not ... I've thought about this long and hard all my life, and the only answer that the scriptures offer is this: Christ paid the penalty for all of our sins. The O.T. has the symbolic sacrifice of the lamb which forshadowed the N.T. sacrifice of Christ. Since he, as the Word, created all, then there was also the need for God, as the creator, to also pay the penalty for the transgressions of those to whom he gave life (knowing fully well that we could not possibly live completely free from transgressing His laws). This is only partially the answer to the question of why we as individuals, cannot be held fully accountable for our actions. If God had never created anything, there would be no such thing as sin. But then there would be no creation. It's both give and take, on God's part, for pursuing the work of creation. The take on His part was dying on the cross for us.
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 06:55 am
@Shostakovich phil,
If I peed though a keyhole I would get more on the other side than your argument does....You start no where, and go back to it....

And to answer; it is not a potent and insightful question...It has no more sight than blind drunk brailling through the night of a dark alley...If its predicates are correct as we have no reason to know, then we would not be able to say yaa or naa regarding an infinite... We cannot be logical about our beliefs, so how can we apply philosophy to theology??? If you buy it yer srcood, and if you don't, yer scrood...It makes us impotent, but only to ourselves to seek such etherial answers out of vanity, but where except in faith is certainty...
 
Justin
 
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 10:48 am
@Fido,
Sapiens Fossor;104186 wrote:
By planting the tree, it was test. I suppose God knew we were going to fail but if we are created in God's image and we hope then God must hope too. We failed the test so God sent Jesus to save us from our sins. As to your question about why should you have to inherit Adam and Eve's sin, if you had been in the garden and innocent of all evil as they were you probably would've eaten from the tree just out of curiosity as they did. Their sin is yours because you, even if you won't admit it, would've done the exact same thing.

This seems to be yet another unique version of the well-known myth of Adam and Eve. So God tested God? Let's not forget folks that this story is not actually truth. It's a story about creation that came about thousands of years after the so-called creation story took place.

Meaning that it was made up and manifested by the creative mind of man. It was not actually a historical event, it's a story and quite possibly a story with metaphorical meaning.

Shostakovich;104603 wrote:
This is a highly potent and insightful queston, is it not ... I've thought about this long and hard all my life, and the only answer that the scriptures offer is this: Christ paid the penalty for all of our sins. The O.T. has the symbolic sacrifice of the lamb which forshadowed the N.T. sacrifice of Christ. Since he, as the Word, created all, then there was also the need for God, as the creator, to also pay the penalty for the transgressions of those to whom he gave life (knowing fully well that we could not possibly live completely free from transgressing His laws). This is only partially the answer to the question of why we as individuals, cannot be held fully accountable for our actions. If God had never created anything, there would be no such thing as sin. But then there would be no creation. It's both give and take, on God's part, for pursuing the work of creation. The take on His part was dying on the cross for us.

It is a great question yet some believe that this story is actually a true account of the creation of man, not by evidence but by faith. We've sort of made the story our own story and adjusted it to meet the needs of followers.

Christ dying on the cross was also an important story but the question remains is it actually true. In all my research I can't find any evidence leading to the truth in this. I did discover that those who were crucified during those days were documented as such and to my knowledge there has been no documentation of a man named Jesus Christ being crucified. Besides, I think the crucifixion of Christ is something we do everyday when we crucify our neighbors or our enemies.

So the validity of the story of Adam and Eve all the way through Christ comes to question. In order for any of this to be believed, one must embrace faith because evidence as such is non-existent but the evidence of other instances that took place around the same time is.

So basically, if you have faith that Adam and Eve is the true historical documentation for the birth of mankind, then their original sin applies to you and your life. If you are like myself and spend hours upon hours examining and searching for the reasons why you should believe it, and come up empty handed, it's only logical to consider this as a story. A novel written by one man and exploded and expounded upon by another.

The choice of inheritance of this 'original sin' becomes a personal one based on faith, not on logic and not on evidence but on faith alone. If you choose to have faith in stories, then that's up to the individual. Those who give stock to this story are thus inheriting it's mythological meaning.

Remember, our minds set the stages for our lives. We control our thoughts and beliefs and likewise attract. Furthermore, we also limit ourselves in the same manner. We are limited not by the limits placed by others upon ourselves but ourselves alone create the limitations of our faith or our desire to seek the actual truth.

I'm not trying to knock the faithful here but faith only goes so far and when faith isn't supported by evidence and/or logic, there's a big question mark.

I personally do not believe that Adam and Eve or their story is literal truth and therefore am not subject to the inheritance of their sin. I know however, based on research that the only evidence of sin in this world is that which man carries on his/her shoulder. If our sin is inherited by the 'story' then we are not responsible. If our sin is created by us, then we are responsible. If we are not responsible for our sin, then there's very little we can do about it. If we are responsible for our sins, then we are also responsible for doing something about it. So in my mind, Adam and Eve is more of a cop out to alleviate responsibility and place the burden of change on some mythical God... thus the reason for the waiting for the second coming of the Christ and The Armageddon.

So it becomes personal choice. Now, the evidence of our placing this burden upon the shoulders of a mythical deity has not done justice to our world and our society. Instead we can just sin over and over again and still be forgiven because we are washed by the blood of the lamb. Evidence shows clerics in the church can molest children and be forgiven. Evidence also shows that we can murder, abuse, torture, and all the other evil things and acts that humankind commits, and still be forgiven because NO SIN is unforgivable because Jesus Christ came, died and rose again in accordance with the scriptures...

... Leading us to the evidence of today. The evidence shows clearly, IMHO that this is obviously not the best way of approaching otherwise our societies would have improved and become more Christ-like. Instead we blame Satan for the sins and take the burden of responsibility off our own shoulders giving us the freedom to sin and still be forgiven.

Do you see where I'm going with this. It's a bunch of hogwash. Humankind needs to take responsibility for what we've done and likewise share in the responsibility of changing it for the better.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 09:50 pm
@Lithium phil,
Original sin is true as a myth. We are born stupid and clueless. There are certain capacities in us that must be activated.

Jungian archetype of Self. Individuation. Any Christians out there who are bothered by the problem of evil or the problem of free will should examine Jung. God and Christ are powerful myths. Christianity is a sublime thing, but only a myth. Sin is just a concept created by man. But its a valuable concept if understood mythologically and not literally.
 
Lithe Oleander
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 06:40 pm
@Lithium phil,
Lithium;84423 wrote:
Why did I have to inherit Adam and Eve's punishment of eating from the tree


Because you would of done exactly the same thing if it was you.

Lithium;84423 wrote:
Why is Adam and Eve's decision placed on a higher level of importance?


Because they were made perfect. They were the first. They represent all of mankind, like a senator represents his entire state.

Lithium;84423 wrote:
Did God deceive man? Meaning, if he knows every decision one will make, then why did he plant the tree in the first place. Isn't this just as bad as Satan tempting man?


If your father tells you that there's a coke in the fridge that he told you not to drink, is your father deceiving you? Life is a test, among other things. What's the point of it being a test if you never get tempted every once in a while?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 08:47 pm
@Fido,
Fido;99192 wrote:
Believe it or not, this question put me on the path to philosophy before I had ever went to school...It is easy to judge God as unfair, even evil; but if we accept God, then God is all, and above the moral notions we have of Good and Evil judged by human conditions...



God is not good, but perfect....I think Heraclitus says something along those lines within a Greek perspective.

Jung tackles God's amorality (or transcendence of human conceptions of morality) in Answer to Job.
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 11:00 pm
@Lithium phil,
As a myth it says something about human morality...People are good in order to not bring down vengeance upon the whole group...Group responsibility, group identity, and group morality go together...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/23/2021 at 12:37:02