I don't see how you get the idea of "Original Sin" from the Garden of Eden story (God, Christian)

[TRANSPONDER]

I can relate to a metaphor of the human condition.

[Rambler123]

IMHO, the real lesson of "original sin" is that we all have a darker, more selfish side. Look at what happens when a child is raised poorly - they often end up being nasty people, turning to crime, etc. Original sin can be seen as that darker seed in all of us that we must always battle - the temptation to do what is easy, selfish, and generally wrong.

That being said, from a religious viewpoint, it's basically used as a way to scare people into following the Church. In short, it implies that everyone is condemned from the get-go, and unless they "come to God" - which really means "do what the Church says," that evil dark mark upon their souls will forever weigh them down. Questions could be asked why a loving God would basically condemn everyone at birth with Original Sin and then only allow maybe a 1/3 or so of the world's population a chance to get rid of that black mark through Christianity, but I know we're not supposed to ask questions like that of the Church...

[Hyker]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

That may be so that YOU don't need to have your arms amputated but it is possible some do.

Maybe YOU don't need to be at enmity to God to enjoy reconciliation like some do.

Oh if only God had you for His adviser! He could learn so much more!

It is not a matter of whether there is another option than God's tough love approach. It is a matter of accepting what He is doing and going along with it.

Hello again Eusebius.

You have to give our friend AREQUIPA this much: he did successfully predict that you would resort to the Romans 9/Job 38 argument back in post #14. That said, you apparent indignation at my line of questioning has another interesting implication.

You are reacting as if I am asserting my disagreement with god's reasoning. In actuality, I saying that I don't understand god's reasoning. What I am disagreeing with is your interpretation of god'd reasoning. That's nothing personal. But are you so sure you understand the mind of god that contradicting your interpretation of this biblical story is tantamount to contradicting god himself? No offense, but that strikes me as a rather arrogant position to assume.

To the rest of the posters in this thread who have addressed my points, I appreciate you sharing your perspectives. There is certainly a lot here to consider.

nateswift - I'm sorry, but I still don't find your case for 'change' as a biblical theme compelling. Certainly we are called to change our hearts (from sinner to believer) but the focus (as I see it) is really on the final state of grace, not the process. Personally, I feel comfortable agreeing to disagree.

AREQUIPA - Archeologically, there may indeed be more evidence for Israelite/Canaanite polytheism than the average person might expect. I feel very comfortable confessing that your expertise on the subject far exceeds my own. My assertion that monotheism is the theme of the OT comes from more of a literary (not to be confused with literalistic) perspective. The failure of the Israelites to maintain their promise to worship no god but YHWH is what drives the action of the story, starting with that ugly golden calf incident that left them wandering 40 years in the desert. While not a particularly scientific method of assessment, a search of the KJV bible for the words "high places" (generally used as a reference for a place of worship to pagan gods) yields 90 hits. I think that's significant.

Katzpur - I was happy to see you contributing (however briefly) to the thread. I haven't "seen you around" lately, and I always enjoy your unique perspective (well...almost always).

Thanks.

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by Hyker

nateswift - I'm sorry, but I still don't find your case for 'change' as a biblical theme compelling. Certainly we are called to change our hearts (from sinner to believer) but the focus (as I see it) is really on the final state of grace, not the process. Personally, I feel comfortable agreeing to disagree.

I will agree that most of Christendom presents it that way, not that it's what the message of "The Way" is about.

[truth321]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

The idea is of paradise lost. Adam screwed up, had to till the lands forever after as did all humans, Eve got her naughty bits re-engineered so that child birth would be painful.

The story anyway reads like the musings of ignorant people that did not understand the how of the working world, animals did not really seem to need to do much to survive.

The original sin is the fact that they disobeyed this imaginary god b/v they assumed that once upon a time it was different. Oddly enough, that premise does support evolution as when we were still on all fours, the internal bodily functions were better "designed" as opposed to what we currently have going bipedal.

The story of adam was told to create the idea of judgment and allow a world to suffer so that god can be believed something pure and holy and would stay that way until judgment and he can allow world suffering and at times does evil hilmself and still hold this position of never hurting anyone.satan is so over rated and mind you we only hear that god is good and satan is bad,when something bad happens to us we are taught to blame satan when something good happens we give the glory to god .

The angels and demons are always fighting but we never see them to know good that has been forced to believe is true.i know god exist and i believe he loves nothing and has no family this is why everybody has a different belief and people as whole have no relationship with him and he refuses to make one that we can see and feel.If anybody is still looking in the sky waiting on jesus you will be waitng like all the past generations and
You will probably get what they got nothing.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Hyker

Hello again Eusebius.

You have to give our friend AREQUIPA this much: he did successfully predict that you would resort to the Romans 9/Job 38 argument back in post #14. That said, you apparent indignation at my line of questioning has another interesting implication.

You are reacting as if I am asserting my disagreement with god's reasoning. In actuality, I saying that I don't understand god's reasoning. What I am disagreeing with is your interpretation of god'd reasoning. That's nothing personal. But are you so sure you understand the mind of god that contradicting your interpretation of this biblical story is tantamount to contradicting god himself? No offense, but that strikes me as a rather arrogant position to assume.

Hyker,
What do you make of this passage:


Romans 8:19-21 For the premonition of the creation is awaiting the unveiling of the sons of God. (20) For
to vanity was the creation subjected, not voluntarily, but because of Him Who subjects it, in expectation"
(21) that the creation itself, also, shall be freed from the slavery of corruption into the glorious freedom of
the children of God."

Notice God subjected the creature (that's Adam and his progeny) to vanity. He did this IN EXPECTATION with a goal in mind. It states we didn't willingly get subject to vanity but He subjected us that way. The goal is to have all mankind come into the glorious freedom.

Now if God does this with a goal in mind of blessing, I can surely rest assured this is what the Genesis account is all about as it pertains to Adam sinning.

If we continue on with the apostle Paul we note this:

Romans 9:19-23 You will be protesting to me, then, "Why, then, is He still blaming? for who has
withstood His intention? (20) O man! who are you, to be sure, who are answering again to God? That
which is molded will not protest to the molder, "Why do you make me thus? (21) Or has not the potter
the right over the clay, out of the same kneading to make one vessel, indeed, for honor, yet one for
dishonor? (22) Now if God, wanting to display His indignation and to make His powerful doings known,
carries, with much patience, the vessels of indignation, adapted for destruction, (23) it is that He
should also be making known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He makes ready
before for glory -"

Please notice it is God that molds each vessel to be a vessel of either mercy or indignation. But this is not the eternal goal God has for these two different vessels. If we go to Romans 11:32 the apostle Paul builds to an apex God's goal:

Rom 11:32 For God locks up all together in stubbornness, that He should be merciful to all."

God had a goal way back in Genesis when He made Adam FLESH knowing full well in advance that the flesh is not able to please God or do His law.

Adam did not do God's law as set down in the garden. He did not please God. But this was all with a goal in mind to bring in the Saviour which would, in the end, bring all mankind into blessing. It is about evil and good. Experience the evil, enjoy the good.

The purpose of God in creating Adam was not to overlook his creation to some future point of glory.

God created Adam with the purpose for that creation to image him - God created Adam in his image - he did not create Adam knowing that Adam must fail because flesh cannot please God. That's not in the story - all of God's creation was very good. Adam was fully capable of pleasing God - that was God's intention and purpose. That's the whole fargin point of being created in his image.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

The purpose of God in creating Adam was not to overlook his creation to some future point of glory.

God created Adam with the purpose for that creation to image him - God created Adam in his image - he did not create Adam knowing that Adam must fail because flesh cannot please God. That's not in the story - all of God's creation was very good. Adam was fully capable of pleasing God - that was God's intention and purpose. That's the whole fargin point of being created in his image.

And yet Adam sinned at the very first trial. He wouldn't have sinned if he wasn't made of flesh.

[TroutDude]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

And yet Adam sinned at the very first trial. He wouldn't have sinned if he wasn't made of flesh.

He had to sin. God planned it that way.

Or did Adam surprise him?

Originally Posted by Eusebius

And yet Adam sinned at the very first trial. He wouldn't have sinned if he wasn't made of flesh.

So angles can't sin? This is besides the point, as always with you.

Adam had freedom of choice. It was a matter of the will not the flesh God created. There was nothing intrinsically wrong with the flesh. God created everything very good - Uh! Even the flesh..