Visit the U.S. Politics Online Discussion Forum Archives!

Sponsored by:

U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum  

Bookmark Us! E-Mail DONATE NOW! Photo Gallery Document Archives Quiz! Register to Vote!!!
Go Back   U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum > Issue Politics > Humanities Issues
Register Blogs FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Humanities Issues Religion, Philosophy, Sociology, Political Theory

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 04-18-2007
Josepha's Avatar
Josepha Josepha is offline
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member

 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson
Posts: 1,157

   
Re: The Theological Fiasco of Original Sin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Non Sequitur View Post
I don't think i said it was a Jewish notion, but if i did please let me correct that. It is in no way Jewish, purely Christian as far as i know.

It's not that God damns all humanity. We made the mistake, we brought sin into the world. It is all on us. God solved the problem with the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

I don't mean to be confrontational but how did we make the problem? Adam and Eve made the problem. Would you consider it sane to blame the great-great-descendent of Attila or Alexander for what their ancestors did?

For that matter, if God wanted a world without sin why did he kick Adam and Eve out of the garden, and into the world? I'm sorry - to me this whole interpretation has the sick, twisted logic of abuse - you've made me hurt you.

I prefer the metaphor of leaving the garden being the beginning of free choice - in essence, karma and dharma - both concepts are also part of the kabbalistic interpretations of Genesis.
__________________
And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, Jan. 29, 2007
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 04-18-2007
Non Sequitur's Avatar
Non Sequitur Non Sequitur is offline
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member

 
Member Since: Jun 2006
Location: Saginaw
Posts: 1,067

United_States     Netherlands

Re: The Theological Fiasco of Original Sin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josepha View Post
I don't mean to be confrontational but how did we make the problem? Adam and Eve made the problem. Would you consider it sane to blame the great-great-descendent of Attila or Alexander for what their ancestors did?

For that matter, if God wanted a world without sin why did he kick Adam and Eve out of the garden, and into the world? I'm sorry - to me this whole interpretation has the sick, twisted logic of abuse - you've made me hurt you.

I prefer the metaphor of leaving the garden being the beginning of free choice - in essence, karma and dharma - both concepts are also part of the kabbalistic interpretations of Genesis.
You're not being confrontational at all. This a very difficult concept that ranks up there with the holy trinity.

What I blame Adam and Eve (figuratively of course) is letting sin into the world. That is what original sin is. Because they let sin into the world we now have all the mess that exists. I'm not blaming my bad actions on them I am responsible for those.

Ok God kicking them out of the Garden is (in my interpretation) a metaphor for the connectedness we lost with God. Because sin was let in the world we can no longer walk with God.
__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Last edited by Non Sequitur; 04-18-2007 at 09:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 04-18-2007
Donkey_Left's Avatar
Donkey_Left Donkey_Left is offline
President
Sinner

 
Member Since: Jan 2005
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 13,311

United_States     Colombia

Re: The Theological Fiasco of Original Sin

Figuratively eh?

Damn that Pandora!
__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2007
Nemo Nemo is offline
County Executive

 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 390

   
Re: The Theological Fiasco of Original Sin



Fr. Guido Sarducci explains “Original Sin”:

In the beginning, God made the heaven and the earth; and He said: “Hey, that’s pretty good!” Then God made man in His own image to rule over all living things; but it was Friday night, and God was drunk, so man didn’t come out so good. Then, while He still had a hangover, God created woman, which only made things worse. As a consolation, God let Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden; but then Eve met this snake guy that told her to eat of the tree of knowledge so she could get her real estate license and sell the place for big bucks; and when God found out, He got real mad and kicked them both out. And, you know, ever since then, almost everything has gone to the Devil.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2007
trailblazer's Avatar
trailblazer trailblazer is offline
High Chancellor
The People's Democratic Republic of Me

 
Member Since: Nov 2004
Location: West of the Atlantic
Posts: 3,015

Liberia     Earth

Re: The Theological Fiasco of Original Sin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Non Sequitur View Post
What I blame Adam and Eve (figuratively of course) is letting sin into the world. That is what original sin is. Because they let sin into the world we now have all the mess that exists. I'm not blaming my bad actions on them I am responsible for those.
Why wasn't the snake the first one to sin by tempting Eve? Who let the snake into the world?
__________________

"Do what I say or I'll hold my breath til you turn blue!"
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2007
htperr6565 htperr6565 is offline
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
The voice of doom

 
Member Since: Mar 2007
Location: The Glorious Southlands of the United States
Posts: 1,706

United_States     Georgia_state

Re: The Theological Fiasco of Original Sin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josepha View Post
I don't mean to be confrontational but how did we make the problem? Adam and Eve made the problem. Would you consider it sane to blame the great-great-descendent of Attila or Alexander for what their ancestors did?

For that matter, if God wanted a world without sin why did he kick Adam and Eve out of the garden, and into the world? I'm sorry - to me this whole interpretation has the sick, twisted logic of abuse - you've made me hurt you.

I prefer the metaphor of leaving the garden being the beginning of free choice - in essence, karma and dharma - both concepts are also part of the kabbalistic interpretations of Genesis.
adam and eve brought knowledge of evil to humanity.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2007
Donkey_Left's Avatar
Donkey_Left Donkey_Left is offline
President
Sinner

 
Member Since: Jan 2005
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 13,311

United_States     Colombia

Re: The Theological Fiasco of Original Sin

Quote:
Originally Posted by htperr6565 View Post
adam and eve brought knowledge of evil to humanity.
Pity they didn't bring a shift key while they were at it.
__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2007
Non Sequitur's Avatar
Non Sequitur Non Sequitur is offline
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member

 
Member Since: Jun 2006
Location: Saginaw
Posts: 1,067

United_States     Netherlands

Re: The Theological Fiasco of Original Sin

Quote:
Originally Posted by trailblazer View Post
Why wasn't the snake the first one to sin by tempting Eve? Who let the snake into the world?
well the snake has traditionally been identified as Satan but the snake could also be temptation in general.
__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2007
htperr6565 htperr6565 is offline
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
The voice of doom

 
Member Since: Mar 2007
Location: The Glorious Southlands of the United States
Posts: 1,706

United_States     Georgia_state

Re: The Theological Fiasco of Original Sin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donkey_Left View Post
Pity they didn't bring a shift key while they were at it.
wow your contribution here is so engaging. thanks for bringing life to this discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2007
trailblazer's Avatar
trailblazer trailblazer is offline
High Chancellor
The People's Democratic Republic of Me

 
Member Since: Nov 2004
Location: West of the Atlantic
Posts: 3,015

Liberia     Earth

Re: The Theological Fiasco of Original Sin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Non Sequitur View Post
well the snake has traditionally been identified as Satan but the snake could also be temptation in general.
And the second half of my questions? Who let the snake into the world? If it was God, why did He? If it wasn't, the whole thing becomes even more intriguing.
__________________

"Do what I say or I'll hold my breath til you turn blue!"
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2007
Non Sequitur's Avatar
Non Sequitur Non Sequitur is offline
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member

 
Member Since: Jun 2006
Location: Saginaw
Posts: 1,067

United_States     Netherlands

Re: The Theological Fiasco of Original Sin

Quote:
Originally Posted by trailblazer View Post
And the second half of my questions? Who let the snake into the world? If it was God, why did He? If it wasn't, the whole thing becomes even more intriguing.
If we are talking about the snake as temptation (or even Satan as the ultimate representation of temptation) we let him in. We were the ones who decided God isn't enough (that is the "sin" if you will in original sin thinking you need something and God to be happy, not just God).
__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2007
noahath noahath is offline
Moderator
liberal idealist

 
Member Since: May 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,464

Australia    
Re: The Theological Fiasco of Original Sin

Quote:
Originally Posted by trailblazer View Post
As you probably know, some Christians think you were conceived in "original sin" because your parents had sex. However, Genesis explicity says that God instructed Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply."

Why would God have told the first humans to sin?
Are you trying to infer that man's interpretation of The Bible is contradictory?
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2007
Nemo Nemo is offline
County Executive

 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 390

   
Re: The Theological Fiasco of Original Sin

God is not as popular as in times past. The biblical representation is rather forbidding and out of date. One would think that, given human nature, God would be more forgiving and lovable for being so demanding of man’s adulation. W. Somerset Maugham said that he found it difficult to believe in a god who was less compassionate and tolerant of human failings than he was himself. In his autobiography, he wrote: “Men are passionate, men are weak, men are stupid, men are pitiful; to bring to bear on them anything so tremendous as the wrath of God seems strangely inept.” W. Somerset Maugham, The Summing Up (1938).

The philosopher Epictetus once said that it was incumbent to acknowledge the existence of the gods and make sacrifice to them. After all, what would they be otherwise but dead statues? For it is not what adorns the temple, but he who worships and adores it that makes the divinity. Perhaps, rather than issuing commandments, God would do better with a good publicist.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2007
noahath noahath is offline
Moderator
liberal idealist

 
Member Since: May 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,464

Australia    
Re: The Theological Fiasco of Original Sin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemo View Post
God is not as popular as in times past. The biblical representation is rather forbidding and out of date. One would think that, given human nature, God would be more forgiving and lovable for being so demanding of man’s adulation. W. Somerset Maugham said that he found it difficult to believe in a god who was less compassionate and tolerant of human failings than he was himself. In his autobiography, he wrote: “Men are passionate, men are weak, men are stupid, men are pitiful; to bring to bear on them anything so tremendous as the wrath of God seems strangely inept.” W. Somerset Maugham, The Summing Up (1938).

The philosopher Epictetus once said that it was incumbent to acknowledge the existence of the gods and make sacrifice to them. After all, what would they be otherwise but dead statues? For it is not what adorns the temple, but he who worships and adores it that makes the divinity. Perhaps, rather than issuing commandments, God would do better with a good publicist.
Although I am agnostic, I understand that the common belief is that "God forgives all" ... it is man that doesn't. Man has done many terrible things in the "name of God", and if there is a God, I'm sure he/she/it would be utterly appalled at some of the teachings and actions they see committed.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2007
Non Sequitur's Avatar
Non Sequitur Non Sequitur is offline
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member

 
Member Since: Jun 2006
Location: Saginaw
Posts: 1,067

United_States     Netherlands

Re: The Theological Fiasco of Original Sin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemo View Post
God is not as popular as in times past. The biblical representation is rather forbidding and out of date. One would think that, given human nature, God would be more forgiving and lovable for being so demanding of man’s adulation. W. Somerset Maugham said that he found it difficult to believe in a god who was less compassionate and tolerant of human failings than he was himself. In his autobiography, he wrote: “Men are passionate, men are weak, men are stupid, men are pitiful; to bring to bear on them anything so tremendous as the wrath of God seems strangely inept.” W. Somerset Maugham, The Summing Up (1938).

The philosopher Epictetus once said that it was incumbent to acknowledge the existence of the gods and make sacrifice to them. After all, what would they be otherwise but dead statues? For it is not what adorns the temple, but he who worships and adores it that makes the divinity. Perhaps, rather than issuing commandments, God would do better with a good publicist.
considering he sacrificed his son for us (or in trinity terms himself) i would say he is the most compassionate thing out there.
__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0 Release Candidate 2
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6
Copyright © 2000 - 2009 U.S. Politics Online