I was just wondering about the original sin argument that Christians postulate most of the time. I do not believe in the garden of eden story but lets for the sake of this thread assume that I do. The bible says God told Adam and Eve that they can eat of every tree in the garden but not of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I looked into the argument and discovered it completely falls short because since the bible agrees that Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and bad before they ate of the fruit, why then did God punish them for that which they did not know? According to the bible they did not know what disobedience was prior to their eating of the fruit. The bible says that God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit and they only found out that they were wrong only after they had eaten the fruit because prior to their eating of the fruit they had no knowledge of what good or bad was, meaning that they did not know that disobedience was a bad thing since they had not yet eaten the fruit. Why would God drive out Adam and Eve from the garden of eden knowing very well that Adam and Eve did not know what it means to be obedient(good) or disobedient(bad). Why did God drive them out knowing fully well that they were deceived by an external force (Satan) besides not having any knowledge that what they did was wrong since the bible says that sin(disobedience etc) only came into the world after they had eaten the fruit?

myths are not written to make any sense. . . they are only written to be believed. . . .the more you look at the christain argument the more absurd and ridiculous it gets. . .good one toneyb. . . .

They knew which tree it was.

mactao:

They knew which tree it was.

I don't understand this explanation, what has that got to do with the other part of the story that says they had no knowledge of good or evil? I'll say that a 1 year old baby might know what fire by its very nature because of its color which separates it from let's say a book but that does not mean that he knows that fire burns and causes pain if all he does is see the fire from a distance most of the time without going close to it. Their knowing the tree has nothing to do with the fact that they didn't know what the difference between good or bad is, disobedienece is a bad thing and they didn't know what it meant until after they had eaten the tree according to the bible.

Damn incompetent god aint he? The whole Eden story looks sort of like one big bully god setting up two innocent puny beings and unleashing a cunning devil on them. There is no way in which you look at it that god gets any credit from this debacle. Well, it does fit in somehow with the creation for his pleasure story sort of like the kid creature at the end of the "Men In Black" movie tossing the universe around like some kind of play ball.

On second thots, maybe the Universe was actually created by god's father who then handed the earth over to his son as a plaything.
I could start a religion based on that I guess.

toneyb:

I was just wondering about the original sin argument that Christians postulate most of the time.

Original sin is a Catholic thing.
Most non-Catholics don't believe in it - those that do adhere to it in some form, believe that Christ wiped the Sin away with his Crucifixion and Ressurection.

Bastage:

Original sin is a Catholic thing.
Most non-Catholics don't believe in it - those that do adhere to it in some form, believe that Christ wiped the Sin away with his Crucifixion and Ressurection.

Is that not the general belief? are there Christians that do not believe that?

Bastage:

Original sin is a Catholic thing.
Most non-Catholics don't believe in it - those that do adhere to it in some form, believe that Christ wiped the Sin away with his Crucifixion and Ressurection.

This is an "untruth" (trying to be civil), it is the bed rock of the christian faith, some of them only claim it as a metaphor for all sorts of jargons in a bid to wriggle out of its stupidity when taken literally. Can you please answer this simple question, If there was no original sin, wetin Jesus come do?

Bastage:

Original sin is a Catholic thing.
Most non-Catholics don't believe in it - those that do adhere to it in some form, believe that Christ wiped the Sin away with his Crucifixion and Ressurection.

This is extraordinary. You are either deliberately dishonest or are just stack ignorant about the tenets of Christianity. Christianity is founded on the notion of Original Sin and the redemptive power of Jesus.

You must suffer from the most adject form of cognitive dissonance - on the one hand holding onto the some of the main essence of rationalism, but still unable to let go of the barbaric beliefs from desert-dwelling tribesmen from about 4000 years ago. Man straighten up.

bastage is not a christian. . . he is just pulling your legs . . . .

A confused question in itself.Adam and Eve knew the consequences of their actions.They knew God's command.Genesis2v16,17.Adam and Eve were said to be highly intelligent beings who had dominion and authority over the whole planet.They were said to be in charge of a wide area of land,not a hut as you might vainly imagine.FYI,they were not insane or imbeciles.They were capable of making decisions,not just eating sand and wood 'because they don't know good and evil'. I wouldn't like to dwell on that.you believe you're wise.Wise people don't waste time speculating,pondering and crying over spilt milk.They move on.find the solution.
The solution to the fall of man,Adam and Eve,still remains Jesus the Messiah.He has come to save us from the fall and its consequences.he has come to give us real life,hope,joy and satisfaction.All you need to do is embrace Him,accept Him and believe Him.

They were highly intelligent beings,it's just that they did not have the knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the apple?Good try.Keep going deeper in the quicksand as you try to explain this away.

Image123:

A confused question in itself.Adam and Eve knew the consequences of their actions.They knew God's command.Genesis2v16,17.Adam and Eve were said to be highly intelligent beings who had dominion and authority over the whole planet.They were said to be in charge of a wide area of land,not a hut as you might vainly imagine.FYI,they were not insane or imbeciles.They were capable of making decisions,not just eating sand and wood 'because they don't know good and evil'. I wouldn't like to dwell on that.you believe you're wise.Wise people don't waste time speculating,pondering and crying over spilt milk.They move on.find the solution.
The solution to the fall of man,Adam and Eve,still remains Jesus the Messiah.He has come to save us from the fall and its consequences.he has come to give us real life,hope,joy and satisfaction.All you need to do is embrace Him,accept Him and believe Him.

Image123:

A confused question in itself.Adam and Eve knew the consequences of their actions.They knew God's command.Genesis2v16,17.Adam and Eve were said to be highly intelligent beings who had dominion and authority over the whole planet,

what is this . where in the bible does it say that adam and eve knew the consequences of their actions? intelligent beings that could did not even know that there were naked? intelligent beings that did not even know their right from their left? how can they know the consequences of their actions when they do not even know the difference between good and bad? adam and eve were very intelligent yet they could not sew cloths for themselves even after the bible god drove them out of the garden?

They were said to be in charge of a wide area of land,not a hut as you might vainly imagine.FYI,they were not insane or imbeciles.They were capable of making decisions,not just eating sand and wood 'because they don't know good and evil'

.

what decision were they capable of making if we are to agree with the biblical narrative? god according to the bible told them not to to eat of the fruit which they did not satan came and convinced them and they ate of the fruit how then have they displayed any ability of being able to make decisions? how can you make decisions when you don't know weather the decision is right or wrong?

I wouldn't like to dwell on that.you believe you're wise.Wise people don't waste time speculating,pondering and crying over spilt milk.They move on.find the solution.
The solution to the fall of man,Adam and Eve,still remains Jesus the Messiah.He has come to save us from the fall and its consequences.he has come to give us real life,hope,joy and satisfaction.All you need to do is embrace Him,accept Him and believe Him

you want people to believe in a story that makes no sense?   . lets assume i believe in the adam and eve story. . .why would an omniscient, merciful god punish people for what they do not know after leaving them vulnerable and allowing his enemy to get to them and deceive them. the fact that they were deceived makes the whole story more absurd and ridiculous. . .coupled with the fact that they did not even know that what they did was wrong. . . .

@Jagunlabi

I wonder o "Highly Intelligent beings" but no knowledge of good and evil sounds like a contradiction in terms. I wonder if Image123 intelligent? or is it religion making a monkey out of otherwise reasonable and rational human beings again?

duduspace:

@Jagunlabi

I wonder o "Highly Intelligent beings" but no knowledge of good and evil sounds like a contradiction in terms. I wonder if Image123 intelligent? or is it religion making a monkey out of otherwise reasonable and rational human beings again?

i wonder ooo. . . i watched a debate today between a christian apologist professor and an atheist scientist on the origin of life and evolution. i was shocked the way that religion had made monkey of the otherwise very intelligent christian professor who even though he tried to run away from the 7 days creation account and some of the mythologies like the noah's ark but still. . . it was a mess. . .

duduspace:

@Jagunlabi

I wonder o "Highly Intelligent beings" but no knowledge of good and evil sounds like a contradiction in terms. I wonder if Image123 intelligent? or is it religion making a monkey out of otherwise reasonable and rational human beings again?

So true.

huxley:


This is extraordinary.  You are either deliberately dishonest or are just stack ignorant about the tenets of Christianity.   Christianity is founded on the notion of Original Sin and the redemptive power of Jesus.

You must suffer from the most adject form of cognitive dissonance - on the one hand holding onto the some of the main essence of rationalism, but still unable to let go of the barbaric beliefs from desert-dwelling tribesmen from about 4000 years ago. Man straighten up.

Read up before you go throwing accusations around, Huxley.

You'll find that Christianity was not founded on the notion of Original Sin - in fact, the Orthodox Church, doesn't recognise Original Sin. It wasn't until 300 years after Christ that Irenaeus first came up with the idea and it was formulated as a weapon to be used to tighten Rome's strength over Christianity. And it wasn't for another couple of hundred years after that when the idea really took off with Augustine of Hippo pushing it on.
Look it up - you'll find Catholics still retain Augustine's doctrine but the majority of Protestants have watered it down or don't believe in it at all, and like I said, those that hold the watered down version believe that Christ's death atoned for it.
Then go and check up on other groups like the Mormons, the Restoration Movement Churches, etc, who don't believe in it at all.
Original Sin as in the context of this thread is almost exclusive to the Catholic Church.

Read up on the subject and then you can come back here and tell me I'm talking crap.

Bastage:

Read up before you go throwing accusations around, Huxley.

You'll find that Christianity was not founded on the notion of Original Sin - in fact, the Orthodox Church, doesn't recognise Original Sin at all. It wasn't until 300 years after Christ that Irenaeus first came up with the idea and it was formulated as a weapon to be used to tighten Rome's strength over Christianity. And it wasn't for another couple of hundred years after that when the idea really took off with Augustine of Hippo pushing it on.
Look it up - you'll find Catholics still retain Augustine's doctrine but the majority of Protestants have watered it down, and like I said, they believe that Christ's death atoned for it.
Then go and check up on other groups like the Mormons, the Restoration Movement Churches, etc, who don't believe in it at all.
Original Sin as in the context of this thread is almost exclusive to the Catholic Church.

Read up on the subject and then you can come back here and tell me I'm talking crap.

Alright, we hear you though I doubt if anyone except themselves include the Mormons as christians anyway but even if we agree with what you say could you still expatiate further on

1. What those "churches" have to say about the Garden of Eden story (perhaps they don't even have it in their bibles becos everyone writes his own bible this days, even murderers such as Rev. King)?

and

2. What the coming of Jesus was supposed to achieve according to those christian sects?

Why not look at the Orthodox Church? It happens to be the second largest church in the world after the Catholic church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church

The page above has the answer to your questions.

One important difference between the Eastern Orthodox tradition and that found within Roman Catholicism is that the Eastern Orthodox, while believing in a particular form and explanation of original sin, do not believe in the Augustinian explanation of the doctrine, which speaks of a moral/spiritual stain upon the soul and even an inheriting of guilt. The Eastern Orthodox doctrine of original sin rather speaks of a severance of communion from God, a loss of sanctifying grace, an inheritance of a spiritual and physical death, the introduction of decay and disease, a subjugation to Satan, and finally a weakening of will and thus an inclination to sin. Succumbing to sin and temptation prevented humanity from participation in the Kingdom of Heaven; thus, all people from the beginning until Christ were prevented from entering into Heaven.

You will notice that the passage contains the words "Original Sin" but this is misleading as it is not Original Sin in the context that we use it here. It is not the doctrine expounded by Augustine and the Orthodox Church does not believe in an inherited form of sin which is the basis of Original Sin as it is popularly understood. In fact, not believing that sin is inherited goes against the basic doctrine of Originnal Sin so the words themselves are irrelevant when used in conjunction with the Orthodox Church. It is a doctrine regarding the sinful state of man as a being rather than as a creature which has sin handed down to him through the generations from Adam and Eve -  Adam and Eve were merely the first sinful people. "Original Sin" is used only in the context that they were the original people.

Their version of sin is also cleansed once a person is baptised.


This paper may be of interest to Huxley as regards the relative late introduction of Original Sin.

http://www.antiochian.org/ancestral-versus-original-sin

A cunning attempt to dodge the 2 simple questions I asked, why are yu trying to muddle up the issue sending me to read some link, let me try to rephrase this. After having read through the link you gave me yourself, can you please answer the two questions I asked instead of asking me to attempt becoming an encyclopedia of useless knowledge.

If you are too dumb or lazy to read the link or follow up on the subject for yourself, why should I bother handing everything to you on a platter? The link contains the answers and is only "useless knowledge" if you asked your questions in ignorance.

Notice where I wrote this?

The page above has the answer to you questions.

Go read for yourself. I'm not your wet-nurse. I've given you the information you need to get started.

Bastage:

If you are too dumb or lazy to read the link or follow up on the subject for yourself, why should I bother handing everything to you on a platter? The link contains the answers and is only "useless knowledge" if you asked your questions in ignorance.

Notice where I wrote this?

Go read for yourself. I'm not your wet-nurse. I've given you the information you need to get started.

You are being quite silly, if yu can't answer questions simple questions simply and all you can do in advancing yur viewpoint is resorting to insults to cover your intellectual inadequacies.
Have you read that link yourself at all and do you think you understand it? if then you should be able to summarize your thinking. This is a clear example of what is wrong with Nigerian education, you can only recite a mantra verbatim and can't even understand its implications.
I know your type well, in my secondary school days you used to recite v = u + 1/2at² and don't speak to anyone before going into the examination hall.

What a crock of shit. I am not your "internet tutor".

The link explains perfectly well the Orthodox stance.
Putting it into my own words or copying and pasting is a waste of my time when the link does the job perfectly well. And why should I bother when you either haven't looked at it or understood it yourself?

Have you read that link yourself at all and do you think you understand it? if then you should be able to summarize your thinking. This is a clear example of what is wrong with Nigerian education, you can only recite a mantra verbatim and can't even understand its implications

Actually, I was educated in the UK. You should also  be aware that I'm very capable of interpreting things for myself as many of my posts here have shown. I would level the charge of not understanding the implications of Original Sin in the Orthodox church directly back at you.
After all, you seem to follow the typical atheistic dogma that all creeds of Christianity are exactly the same.

To tell the truth, I doubt that you were even aware that the Orthodox church existed until I pointed it out to you.

So instead of giving me the ridiculous claim of "You don't understand what your link says", why don't you actually read up on the subject as I actually suggested.

Batage are you still claiming to be a christian?  i have never seen a christian that  vehemently denies the old testament god like you do. . . .i will agree with you that not all creeds of christianity are exactly the same. . . .but majority of christians believe in the original sin hypothesis. . .

mazaje:

Batage are you still claiming to be a christian?  i have never seen a christian that  vehemently denies the old testament god like you do. . . .i will agree with you that not all creeds of christianity are exactly the same. . . .but majority of christians believe in the original sin hypothesis. . .

He is not an orthodox Christian but a Marcionite

huxley:

He is not an orthodox Christian but a   Marcionite

Bastage:

What a crock of shit. I am not your "internet tutor".

The link explains perfectly well the Orthodox stance.
Putting it into my own words or copying and pasting is a waste of my time when the link does the job perfectly well. And why should I bother when you either haven't looked at it or understood it yourself?

Actually, I was educated in the UK. You should also  be aware that I'm very capable of interpreting things for myself as many of my posts here have shown. I would level the charge of not understanding the implications of Original Sin in the Orthodox church directly back at you.
After all, you seem to follow the typical atheistic dogma that all creeds of Christianity are exactly the same.

To tell the truth, I doubt that you were even aware that the Orthodox church existed until I pointed it out to you.

So instead of giving me the ridiculous claim of "You don't understand what your link says", why don't you actually read up on the subject as I actually suggested.

Another egoistical idiot thinking more of himself than he actually is, answer the simple questions and stop muddling up issues, what business is it of yours if I know about the Orthodox church before you mentioned it or not? and where exactly did I ever indicate that all the creeds of christianity are the same? in this days where everyone writes his own bible? what a laugh.
My questions are simple and should not need me to "download the internet" in order to get an answer to them, I will repeat them once again for clarity's sake.

1. What do those "churches" have to say about the Garden of Eden story (perhaps they don't even have it in their bibles becos everyone writes his own bible this days, even murderers such as Rev. King)?

and

2. What was the coming of Jesus supposed to achieve according to those christian sects?

Surely, those are simple enough questions to answer for an erudite UK educated scholar like yourself without needing to direct me to an internet link.

I've studied Marcionism in the past and it's a very interesting topic.
Out of interest, did you know it came very close to being the major creed in Christianity? Studying the history books it really does seem that it was almost a toss up between Catholicism and Marcionism in the early days. The Catholic Church had to fight it long and hard and turn it into a heresy to beat it down. Who knows how many people lost thier lives in the crusade against it?

But no, Huxley. I don't hold the duallist view that was prevalent amongst followers of Marcionism. I just see the majority of the OT as irrelevant whereas the Marcionites saw it, and the god that it contained, as evil.

@duduspace.

You're just noise.

mazaje:

but majority of christians believe in the original sin hypothesis. . .

OK. Here's one for you.
Go out and ask a hundred regular Christians why they sin.

I absolutely guarantee that the majority of the replies will be "Because I'm human" rather than "Because Eve ate an apple".

Without even knowing it, the vast majority of those Christians will be following the Orthodox view rather than the version of Original Sin preached by the Catholic Church.

Bastage:

@duduspace.

You're just noise.

and yu're just full of nonsense.

Bastage:

OK. Here's one for you.
Go out and ask a hundred regular Christians why they sin.

I absolutely guarantee that the majority of the replies will be "Because I'm human" rather than "Because Eve ate an apple".

you are getting it wrong here. . . if you ask any christian how sin got into the world he/she will refer you to the eve and serpent story. . . that is a basic christian principle. . . .christians believe that they sin because satan is always on the offensive trying to lead them away from their god not because they are human. . . ask any christian why he/she sin and he/she will point to the devil and blame him for tempting him/her. . . .  

Without even knowing it, the vast majority of those Christians will be following the Orthodox view rather than the version of Original Sin preached by the Catholic Church.

majority of christians believe in the original sin as the way sin got into the world. . . not as you are putting it. . . .

mazaje:

you are getting it wrong here. . . if you ask any christian how sin got into the world he/she will refer you to the eve and serpent story. . . that is a basic christian principle. . . .christians believe that they sin because satan is always on the offensive trying to lead them away from their god not because they are human. . . ask any christian why he/she sin and he/she will point to the devil and blame him for tempting him/her. . . .

majority of christians believe in the original sin as the way sin got into the world. . . not as you are putting it. . . .

I guess he wants yu to define "christians" as those sects that are either catholic churches or offshoots with the same mainstream beliefs (as if the gnostic church is in any statistically significant quantity in Nigeria) a lot of the sects he is referring to are even more confused than the mainstream christians anyway.
Bloke just wants to show that he is full of knowledge, but he seems quite incapable of applying the knowledge to relevant issues.