1. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14606
    22 Oct '08 12:18
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Thanks for the reminder.
    One major question that Genesis raises for me, is that Genesis is clearly an attempt to explain the origin of original sin, but if it is not to be taken literally, then does it explain it at all, and does original sin really exist? If Adam did not really exist, then whose sin am I paying off?
    If Adam really existed, he in person was responsible for his actions and nobody else -of course I am ready to check again this issue out when our respectful scientists will declare that they found the chromosome of the sins.
    If Adam is a fictional person, then for this miserable atheist the whole story of Adam and Eve is just another worhtless mambo-jumbo delirium;
  2. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    22 Oct '08 12:32
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    So you think that we should take it as simply a product of the beliefs and culture of the writers coming through in the story? Should we take any of the story as coming from God? If not, then why should it remain in the Bible? What purpose does it serve? (I am not saying it shouldn't, merely asking for clarification).
    the christians can never admit that any part of the bible is untrue because that would question other parts. it is still more easy(hard to imagine why) to admit ludicrous and horrific things and say ANYTHING in the bible was inspired by god.
  3. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    22 Oct '08 12:43
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Thanks for the reminder.
    One major question that Genesis raises for me, is that Genesis is clearly an attempt to explain the origin of original sin, but if it is not to be taken literally, then does it explain it at all, and does original sin really exist? If Adam did not really exist, then whose sin am I paying off?
    that leads to debating the philosophy of jesus. did jesus die for an original sin? a sin that condemned to hell every person before his death and every african canibal or aztec or Incan that never heard of jesus? A god of love wouldn't condemn a person for not believing in Jesus when it wasn't the person's fault? i believe it is more likely jesus is intended as an example of sacrifice for the good of others.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    22 Oct '08 14:33
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    the christians can never admit that any part of the bible is untrue because that would question other parts. it is still more easy(hard to imagine why) to admit ludicrous and horrific things and say ANYTHING in the bible was inspired by god.
    You are of course over generalizing a bit. As far as I know the Catholics and Anglicans and other denominations officially accept that the Bible is not wholly inspired by God not guaranteed to be completely true. I could be wrong of course, does anyone else know what the major denominations' stance on the matter is?
  5. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    22 Oct '08 15:16
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    You are of course over generalizing a bit. As far as I know the Catholics and Anglicans and other denominations officially accept that the Bible is not wholly inspired by God not guaranteed to be completely true. I could be wrong of course, does anyone else know what the major denominations' stance on the matter is?
    if they don't accept the premise that it is wholly inspired by God, then who is entitled to point what parts are and what aren't?

    maybe we should wait for the official stance of catholics, orthodox etc before continuing on this path of arguing.
  6. Joined
    07 Jan '08
    Moves
    34575
    22 Oct '08 15:471 edit
    Originally posted by black beetle
    The tale of Adam and Eve is the perfect tool required for a state of the art manipulation of the humanity by the representatives and the commercial travellers of "God" worldwide.
    Without an "original sin" a "savior" would never been required, thus the biggest franchising on Earth -Abrahamic Religions Co.- would never stood a chance to exist๐Ÿ™‚
    Original sin is not a product of this Judaic story. You can be looking to St. Augustine for that kind of nonsense. Original sin is not the concept(s) that the writer(s) are trying to convey here.
  7. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14606
    23 Oct '08 05:16
    Originally posted by Badwater
    Original sin is not a product of this Judaic story. You can be looking to St. Augustine for that kind of nonsense. Original sin is not the concept(s) that the writer(s) are trying to convey here.
    Hi Badwater dude, where went the violin?

    I don't know which were the intentions of the writer(s) or of St. Augustine over that Judaic story, but my common sens(e) drives me to that conclusion.

    But surely I would like to hear your opinion my friend;
  8. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    23 Oct '08 08:021 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    my opinion of the forbidden fruit is that with knowledge and understanding comes suffering, comes hunger for more.

    before the apple, man was happy being simple, no need for clothes, for luxury, he ate whatever came his way. god provided. once he asked for knowledge and took it, he saw that he was naked and began asking for more. the expulsion from the g ...[text shortened]... ling adam he can no longer be happy in a simple place and he must make a life for him elsewhere.
    ...the expulsion from the garden of eden can be understood as god telling adam he can no longer be happy in a simple place and he must make a life for him elsewhere.

    Are you basing your "philosophy of Adam" on Genesis itself, or your telling of it? God tells Adam in advance, in no uncertain terms, that if he eats of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then he will die. Your "interpretation" hardly does justice to the plain narrative of the story.

    If you're truly interested in figuring out what spiritual truth the Genesis account of Adam and Eve is communicating, then you should start by asking why eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil necessarily means death to all of Adam and his descendants. By all accounts God is not insane. In fact, we should be able to assume that he is the sanest and most sober individual there is. So there must be a very good, right, and proper reason for acting as he did.

    Can you think of what that reason might be?
  9. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    23 Oct '08 08:23
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    [b]...the expulsion from the garden of eden can be understood as god telling adam he can no longer be happy in a simple place and he must make a life for him elsewhere.

    Are you basing your "philosophy of Adam" on Genesis itself, or your telling of it? God tells Adam in advance, in no uncertain terms, that if he eats of the tree of the know ...[text shortened]... ght, and proper reason for acting as he did.

    Can you think of what that reason might be?[/b]
    how can we know what the people who wrote genesis intended? maybe it really was simply narrative. i am asking what the philosophy of the story might be. what you understand from it.

    consider a painting. maybe by looking at it you might be experiencing a whole different thing than the author.


    back to the thing at hand. let's consider the meaning of the word death. does an animal realize its mortal condition? does he plan according to that? does he feel regret over the life he lived, the choices it made at the time of death? does he care?

    one could put forward the idea that since animals do not live as we do, they do not die as we do. so when god told adam he will die if he ate from the tree of apples, it can be argued that he basically said: "you will realize your mortality, attain true consciousness and you will no longer be able to live a simple life." eating from the tree of knowledge is an awakening as sonhouse said, the realization of one's mortal condition and the desire to achieve something in the short time given.
  10. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14606
    23 Oct '08 09:29
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    [b]...the expulsion from the garden of eden can be understood as god telling adam he can no longer be happy in a simple place and he must make a life for him elsewhere.

    Are you basing your "philosophy of Adam" on Genesis itself, or your telling of it? God tells Adam in advance, in no uncertain terms, that if he eats of the tree of the know ...[text shortened]... ght, and proper reason for acting as he did.

    Can you think of what that reason might be?[/b]
    No matter of "that reason", it seems to me that we have an authority which you name it "God", and we also have the lesser creations (in that state they are just humans and not "Gods"๐Ÿ˜‰ of that authority. The superior creature of the two, Mr Adam, (Eve is good just for the laundry and some tricky tricks in several positions by the laundry, on the laundry, back seat and elswhere) is ordered to act according to the desire of his creator. But Adam eats the apple etc etc...

    But I am neither a Christian nor a theologist and in addition I 'm invaded by the spirit of the Antichrist, as you claimed, therefore I suggest that you have a different opinion. So kindly please do reveal to us the spititual truth for which your denomination stands and let us know more about your interpretation, which it must be accurate thanks to the righteousness and the other virtues that you achieved due to the fact that you are a truly born by God person;
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    23 Oct '08 09:40
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    By all accounts God is not insane. In fact, we should be able to assume that he is the sanest and most sober individual there is. So there must be a very good, right, and proper reason for acting as he did.
    Can you explain that reasoning? You talk as if it is self evident that God is sane, and sober.
    You say 'by all accounts', yet it could easily be argued that many of the Biblical accounts indicate otherwise. The account in question (Genesis) being a good example. Adam apparently did not know right from wrong, had tendencies towards giving into temptation, and clearly did not take Gods threats seriously, yet God went right ahead and placed the temptation within easy reach.
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    23 Oct '08 09:481 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    if they don't accept the premise that it is wholly inspired by God, then who is entitled to point what parts are and what aren't?
    I can assure you that at least some Christians do not accept that premise.
    Your question leads to the point that the people who chose which books to include in the Bible faced a similar dilemma, and so do those who accept their decision.
    I don't think the Jews think their scriptures are infallible, or inspired by God, though there might be groups that do, does anyone know?
    Of course your question also raises the ugly issue of who is entitled to give the 'correct' interpretation of scripture.
    I think the Anglicans to a large extent keep it democratic and open to change. Even the Catholics rarely ever set it in stone via the Pope.

    [edit]
    Having thought about it, I suspect that there are Christians who do not think that any of the Bible is inspired by God. There are no good reasons to think that it is, and such a belief is hardly a prerequisite for someone to be Christian. Much of the New Testament consists of letters that were never really intended to be part of a 'Holy Book'.
  13. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    23 Oct '08 12:56
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    By popular demand(twhite) let us discuss the philosphy of adam. what can be understood from the creation of the first man?

    maybe we should refrain from comments such as "god created him, said he did, i don't need to know more". at least from now. and comments like "christians are idiots, adam didn't exist and there is no spoon" at least at first.
    What should be understood from the creation and failure of the first man is this:

    What works against us because of one man - Adam, in principle is turned around in the Second Man Christ, to work for our benefit.

    Christ is called the second man (1 Cor. 15:47).

    He is also called "the last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45), as one who concludes all the misfortunate things we inherited from the first man.

    As Adam was the head of the old fallen humanity, Christ is the Head of a new God infused humanity.

    " ... the last Adam became a life giving Spirit " (1 Cor. 15:45) Christ as the conclusion of the Adamic fall, in resurrection, became a divine life imparting Spirit to head up a new race of sons of God.
  14. Joined
    07 Jan '08
    Moves
    34575
    23 Oct '08 23:492 edits
    Originally posted by black beetle
    Hi Badwater dude, where went the violin?

    I don't know which were the intentions of the writer(s) or of St. Augustine over that Judaic story, but my common sens(e) drives me to that conclusion.

    But surely I would like to hear your opinion my friend;
    The bass picture will come back, or some sort of musical picture, after Halloween. ๐Ÿ™‚

    I'll dig up some of my stuff on St. Augustine. The idea of original sin starts with him and some of that comes from his own over sexualization. He eventually felt that need to repress that and find justification of that repression in the Garden of Eden story, which has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with how the ancient Jewish oral tradition viewed its own spiritual awakening. I have some things in my library on St. Augustine; he's a peculiar case but not unlike a smoker who quits and then goes ballistic on everything having to do with smoking - even penalty of death.
  15. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14606
    24 Oct '08 04:35
    Originally posted by Badwater
    The bass picture will come back, or some sort of musical picture, after Halloween. ๐Ÿ™‚

    I'll dig up some of my stuff on St. Augustine. The idea of original sin starts with him and some of that comes from his own over sexualization. He eventually felt that need to repress that and find justification of that repression in the Garden of Eden story, which has ...[text shortened]... quits and then goes ballistic on everything having to do with smoking - even penalty of death.
    So I thought that the bass was a violin, what an idiot๐Ÿ™‚

    But Adam ate the apple and this is the original sin, which it remains as an issue and it has not to do solely with Human's sexualization but with his general attitude too. The main doctrine of the Abrahamic religions is still that the sinful Human has to saved by a Savior -without the first sinful Adam and the original sin, the last Adam would be meaningless etc.
    Am I wrong?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree