Original Sin

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 15
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,657
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
The Idea of Original Sin is believed by Christians to have come about thousands of years ago in the Garden of Eden located in Mesopotamia( modern-day Iraq) by, we are told, a woman that had a conversation with a "serpent".
  God by all accounts had warned her husband to- be, Adam not to eat from the all knowing tree of good and evil or he would die the same day.  But it turns out that Eve after a conversation with a serpent  took its advice and decided to have a good ole' chomp of its fruit regardless. It has to be noted though, that Eve was never given this warning against the tree; he had warned only the Adam and at a time before Eve was even created.  But this didn't stop the Church  placing all the blame for original sin on the woman; Eve, and as a result all those "born of woman" are sinful, i.e. we have all inherited sin; Eve was now a temptress and seducer in the eyes of the Church and all done no doubt to establish male superiority over the woman and the so the women is informed that for encouraging the Adam and casting her influences upon him against god will , " your husband will rule over you".

At this point it is only the Adam that is exiled "Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden". And it is not until later in the story we discover that Eve followed him. And they dwelt in the land of Elda.

  We then hear of a secondary problem for the gods. It was another tree, the Tree of Life and  it appears that this problematic tree was also the cause of the Adams expulsion "lest he put forth his hand and eat and live forever and be like us" although he hadn't touched this tree he was deprived of any of its benefit regardless.

  It is difficult to understand the context of this whole saga, where the serpent has come from. Because god had created all the animals before he created the Adam yet not a single word about the creation of a serpent with the power to oppose him. Buy all accounts god had looked over his creation and "saw that it was good". But without any explanation a serpent  with the  human voice appears a totally independent creature over which god has no control!?

 As I have wrote about in another thread - https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9943-the-myth-of-satan?page=1&post_number=1 - the Church dogma on the serpent /satan anomaly but doesn't appear anywhere in Genesis.

It wasn't until the church Father, St Augustine of Hippo of North Africa had pronounced in the 4th century that because Eve had enchanted and enticed  her husband to eat from the forbidden tree that he pronounced the doctrine of "Original Sin" which insists to this very day. It maintains that owning to the transgression of Eve "mother of all living" all people are born is sin simply by virtue of having mothers!.

 Of course, as per usual, it must have slipped the minds of the early Church Bishops that this would have included, Jesus.

 





#2
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
eastern christians such as eastern orthodox dont believe we are born into sin, we are only born the propensity to sin. that sounds better in my book.  plus it's more common these days among christians to take adam and eve as a educational fiction. id say we shouldn't discount half of christians and pretend only western fundamentalist christianity matters.
#3
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,801
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Stephen

Around 17 million years ago, the great apes splintered off from their evolutionary kin. Between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago, Homo sapiens emerged on the scene, and the species began its slow ascension toward global domination. At some point religion was invented to justify their existence.
#4
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,053
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
I think the religion was sold to them.

They ran into problems without solutions, such as lack of rain, then diseases, plague.

The only explanation for those things that was available at the time was supernatural being.

And as soon as they started believing in supernatural, their belief gave birth to plenty of other nonsense too.

Thats why they believed in spirits, vampires, monsters, werewolves, witches, magic... they had plenty of nonsense and some of their nonsense simply remained to this day. Thats all there is to it.
#5
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,801
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea

Tru dat !
#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,190
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Bang on !
#7
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,190
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
It's amazing that humans still can't come to terms with the penis vagina thing.
#8
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,562
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
I'm pretty sure this story of Adam and Eve has a raison d'etre only known by the person who wrote it, because as it is written, it's susceptible of various interpretations.
Topic's author
#9
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,657
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
I'm pretty sure this story of Adam and Eve has a raison d'etre only known by the person who wrote it.......

I think in the bible authors version  he tried to hide it. 

Interesting point if we are to compare the Genesis creation story with the original Mesopotamian creation epic written thousand of years before the bible was even thought of.
In this much earlier story the Serpent was non other than  another god, the Lord EA Enki half brother to Enlil the ruling god. He took a likening to the earthling woman and slipped inside her;  something that was a total taboo for the gods and their sons.

 Genesis appears to touch on this story but affords us just two lines concerning the whole saga. One will be forgiven for believing that the bible authors wished to brush over the whole episode a quickly as possible; simply writing:

 "the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose", and that is it!

The Sumerian story fills in some of the the missing parts.  They have it that these son's of gods saw these "daughters of men"  and raped them. As punishment for  they were forced to marry them and remain on earth never to return to their heavenly stations.

 But the punishments wasn't because they had committed rape, it was because they had "defiled themselves" by having sex with these daughters of men.

Is it any wonder the Book of Enoch was wasn't included in the bible? For according to Enoch, the leaders of this gang rape were two son's/angels of god named Azazel and Shemyaza and it was for this reason that they were bound in chains to await the fires of hell;  <<< reminiscent of Revelation and referred to in a recent  post I made to you here>>#13

 Interestingly, when these " daughters of men " gave birth, the resulting off - spring were rather on the large side. Maybe this is why when we read of Eve's punishment she is told:

"“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children". ?

All good stuff, me thinks.


#10
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen


.

Stephen,
 
I am sure you would agree, TRUE Christians like myself have to have the concept of “Original Sin,” otherwise there would be no need whatsoever for Jesus to come to earth to save us from our sins in the first place! 

The contradicting Creation narratives fully show the start and foundation of women being truly 2nd class citizens.  Lest you forget, not only did Jesus as God state that because Eve transgressed FIRST in being the impetus of “Original Sin,” where her husband Adam was to rule over her, but Jesus as God also said that Eve was to have brutal pain in child bearing, herewith: “To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16)

If you remember correctly a while back, Jesus' direct words and I easily took Miss Tradesecret "to the cleaners regarding this topic of Original Sin!" Therefore, she won’t be coming into this thread of yours anytime soon, because if she does comment upon this topic, I will once again in the name of Jesus have to literally Bible Slap her Silly®️ again!

.

Topic's author
#11
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,657
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I am sure you would agree, TRUE Christians like myself have to have the concept of “Original Sin,” otherwise there would be no need whatsoever for Jesus to come to earth to save us from our sins in the first place! 

Yes, another dilemma for the Christian Church. Is it any wonder they had to change the story and pile all the blame on us.


 Lest you forget, not only did Jesus as God state that because Eve transgressed FIRST in being the impetus of “Original Sin,” {.........................}

I believe that you are speaking of the post Jesus story as relayed in Timothy ?

The idea of "Original Sin" is a fascinating subject all of its own, in my opinion, Brother D. It is clear from the much earlier story of the so called "fall of mankind" that it was gods own sons that were the transgressors as the Sumerian epic and the Book of Enoch clearly spell out. It was they that had "sinned" against god in the first instance.
 And it has to be taken into account what god himself has to say in the Genesis version: " whom I created,” then going on to state "for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth".
To corrupt something there had to be a state or condition where there was something unspoiled to begin with. And Genesis goes on and talks about what man has become because of his  spoiling or corrupting  nature with which he was created through Eve.


 But let me tell you this. Humans have never needed a sinful nature to make them sin.
  
 Wasn't the first sin ever committed- committed  by "the devil himself" ?  He didn't  have a sinful nature to make him sin, did he?  Then there are the angels that " fell from heaven". So did not they too have a sinful nature to make them sin. It is only then that Eve is said to have sinned. She did not have a sinful nature to make her sin. Then, why should it be thought necessary for all men to be born with a sinful nature to account for their sins? Were not the son's of god created first?

 It is the firm belief of Christians and the Christian Church that the son's of god "fell" i.e. sinned; the bible is riddled with verses telling us this, 2 Peter being just one.  But the Pastors, Chaplains and Priests can never face up to - going by their own beliefs - that the son's of god too must have had been created /born with the same sinful nature. They -the Pastors, Chaplains and Priests - will ignore the clear biblical fact that it was only after the son's of god sinned, that Eve is said to have sinned and not before, while also ignoring the what we have and are, all comes from god according to their very own ideology!
If  every man "born of women" did "inherit sin" from  Eve "the mother of all living" then it came from only one place; god.



#12
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,562
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Stephen
Interesting point if we are to compare the Genesis creation story with the original Mesopotamian creation epic written thousand of years before the bible was even thought of.
In this much earlier story the Serpent was non other than  another god, the Lord EA Enki half brother to Enlil the ruling god. He took a likening to the earthling woman and slipped inside her;  something that was a total taboo for the gods and their sons.
Indeed. The whole bible has references to other eastern beliefs. And I have to say it's not a bad thing, you can see it in literature, there isn't any novel that hasn't been inspired by past novels.

In the gospels, the doctine of Jesus being born from a virgin is not an original tale, you can see it in the egyptian culture before Jesus existed. It occurs to me that the doctrine of Jesus being God's son is not original either, I think it was taken from the Greek mythology in which there are human figures that appear as God's son like Hercules who is Zeus' son. I mean, it squares perfectly because the gospels were written in greek, so I can suppose that the writers were inspired by the greek phylosophy.
Topic's author
#13
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,657
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
so I can suppose that the writers were inspired by the greek phylosophy.[.........................] it squares perfectly because the gospels were written in greek, 

Indeed.
The Israelites had been under Greek rule for some 500 years before the Roman rule. Generations had been born and raised in Greek society taking on the Greek culture and its gods. They had drifted from their original god, the god of Jacob/Israel and had become Hellenised. This part of their  history is missing from the gospels.  .  These generations were the" lost sheep"  that   it is said  by Jesus to have come to find , reunite , save and to tie back to their original roots, faith and god. i.e. those that had "fell away".   Hence the parables of the lost coin, son and sheep:
“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
The word religion literally means to - tie back.

There were many Jewish revolts against the Greeks and on which the bible is silent about.



#14
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,272
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Stephen
 It is difficult to understand the context of this whole saga, where the serpent has come from. Because god had created all the animals before he created the Adam yet not a single word about the creation of a serpent with the power to oppose him. Buy all accounts god had looked over his creation and "saw that it was good". But without any explanation a serpent  with the  human voice appears a totally independent creature over which god has no control!?
As to that, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written by separate authors. So, the same authors who wrote "and God saw that it was good" did not write the serpent narrative.

Check out this TikTok from scholar Dan McLellan titled "Making the Adam & Eve Story Make Sense."

A quote:

  • "Genesis chapter 2 was written before Genesis chapter 1, and Genesis chapter 2 has absolutely nothing to do with Genesis chapter 1. Genesis chapter 1 is something that came along in later generations because authors did not like the theology of Genesis chapter 2, and so felt that it needed to be updated and corrected and superseded."
The creators of the serpent narrative never intended their story to be read in the context of Genesis 1, which makes much more sense.
Topic's author
#15
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,657
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Castin
She said "Adam and Eve are not mentioned at all in chapter 1". And  Dan McClellan appears to have agreed with her observation.
But they may not have been named in chapter 1 but Genesis Chapter 1 does attest;

Genesis1:26-27.KJV.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 Dan McClellan says something interest to me at least here : "the God/s observes there is something not good about their creation".  Which I believe he is referring to this:
" But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him" Genesis 2:20

So,
 the  Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man”. Genesis 2:20-23. NKJV.

 I believe I have covered this on this forum before some time ago. 

 To the 21st century mind this would seem nothing short of genetic engineering, with Adam being anaesthetised (put under, to sleep) and a body part taken (cartilage maybe) from him to create one (a female) of HIS OWN kind and not a kind in the image of the Gods. We read above that nothing could be found that was “comparable” to Adam, meaning nothing was similar or equivalent or not compatible, which interestingly has one definition that means capable of forming a chemically or biochemically stable system’ or in Adams case, not capable and unstable, he may have been firing blanks?. In other words, Adam of the bible Gen 2 was not able to reproduce with the female that had been created earlier in Genesis1:26-27.

So it could well be that the "god's" failed on the first go and it is as  Dan McClellan states:  " they realised something was not good...so through trial and error they had to try and improve their creation".  

The Sumerians tell us that it took quite a few trials with many errors,  and to me,  interestingly, Dan McClellan's biblical idea supports perfectly what the much older Sumerian version of creation has to say. The Sumerians go further and actually tell us and why we were created in the first place:

So the decision to create a “primitive worker” was made because the Lords were not ‘miners’.

It appears that the ancient Mesopotamian lords needed someone to do their bidding and for no other reason than they didn't want to do it themselves. And included in this bidding, it is as the bible clearly states:

 “There was not a man to till the ground”. So “God formed man of the dust of the ground” Genesis 2:5-7. KJV.
to "till" is to dig. And to dig was to "mine".

I made many  of these comparisons years ago when I was reading on ancient Mesopotamia and other material. I believe that I may have also posted about them on this forum too?

So look at this and make up your own mind.

(1)The decision to create a “primitive worker” because the Gods were not ‘miners’ is reminiscent of;
“There was not a man to till the ground”. So “God formed man of the dust of the ground” Genesis 2:5-7. KJV.

(2)The taking of the “two strands essence” is reminiscent of the taking the “rib” of Adam. Genesis2:20-23. NKJV.

(3)the new name given to this geneticist Goddess is Lady of Life, is similar to the name given to Eve by Adam.
“And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living”. Genesis 3:20.

(4)The “Unapproved” adding of “essence” (there own genes) that caused the two hybrids to be “expelled” by the lord. i.e. the serpent lord had sex with the human female which made it possible for her to reproduce.  Reminiscent of the exile of the Adam/a from the garden. Genesis 3:22-23.

It should also be remembered that that kissin' cousins do not make for good offspring.

The fact has to be faced, that if any of this is true, then humans were created for no other reason than as a slave race to the "god's" and nothing to do with "god's love" whatsoever.

 Nice to see you back, by the way, Castin