• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Adam and Eve, Original Sin

head of joaquin said:
A very good reading.

One wonders why Genesis got incorporated into the gospel at all. There really is no connection and the mythos is about something totally different, even to the point of a somewhat ironic God.

Christianity missed the boat when it rejected Marcionism, which created a canon that didn't include the Hebrew scriptures. The Hebrew scriptures are wonderful and insightful texts about the human condition, which dwarf any other narrative from antiquity in complexity and moral fullness; but they are unrelated to the Christian gospel of transformation through God's love.
Click to expand...

Well, I think there is some reason for this. I think it's plausible that Christianity arose out of some currents in Jewish Gnosticism, and rapidly absorbed elements of the syncretic cults so common in the Hellenistic world.

I suspect, but cannot prove, that there is a continuity in the mystical undercurrents among what became Judaism and Christianity.

head of Joaquin said:
Genesis 1 and 2 are complex accreted narratives that bring together a number of different motifs from various traditions over a long period of time. It's really not a single narrative but a number of stories that can't be harmonized, despite the best efforts of the redactor. So in a real sense, Genesis 1 and 2 doesn't have a single meaning and cant have one. It has disparate, contradictory motifs packed together making it evocative and elusive. That's why millennia later, we still read it with interest, unlike the single minded "theology" of works like Hesiod "Works and Days." It's that fact that Genesis isn't a unitary text that makes it so interesting to us.
Click to expand...

I actually think Usrai (assuming he is the redactor) did a pretty good job in uniting the narratives of the various sources. P and D seem to have a natural way of being combined. J and E are a little more difficult. I like to read it specifically because I think the techniques he used to combine the various sources may speak somewhat to mystical themes he thought important.
 
Paschendale said:
And to choose good consciously. Which most people do. So how are we worse off (or "fallen") for gaining that? How would have been better off as perpetually ignorant, or essentially as monkeys? I don't think we have anything to be ashamed of merely for growing up. That's not a taint. That's just life getting more complicated because we are now more complicated.
Click to expand...

The question wasn't over knowledge, it was over the knowledge of good and evil, and being "like God." The question was who has moral authority, man or God .... Adam and Eve chose themselves over God.
 
Logicman said:
If anyone winds up in Hell IT'S THEIR OWN FAULT, for rejecting Jesus' salvation.
Click to expand...

That's like saying "if someone ends up in a Gulag, IT'S THEIR OWN FAULT for rejecting Stalin."

The Catholic vision of Hell is not biblical.
 
Paschendale said:
Except that, in this story, god specifically makes human beings a certain way, including curious. An all knowing god couldn't possibly be surprised that its favorite creations will act a certain way, like innocently believing the snake telling them that it's okay to eat the fruit. It was in their nature to begin with to do that. God made them that way, and put the tree there with all its dangers, and put the snake there and made its nature to lie to them, which suggests the snake either being totally innocent as well, or having more knowledge than Adam and Eve did.

No one deserves punishment for a transgression that they cannot comprehend. Eve could not comprehend that the snake could lie to her, or tell her something that wasn't true. She could not comprehend that she was making a choice at all. After all, the snake was just as much an agent of god as she was, so how could anything bad occur from anything god had created?

I'll give you that it's a metaphor for essentially gaining sentience, but the story treats that as a BAD thing. That's where the problem lies. No one needs to be redeemed from that. And if you take the story literally, either god is fallible because Adam and Eve weren't supposed to eat the apple, or it was part of the plan all along and so why should we need god to forgive us for doing what we were supposed to do all along?

Which is nonsense because, according to the story, she didn't know any better. She wasn't making a conscious choice. She doesn't start acting as if she has any knowledge until after Adam eats the apple, too. The only one who makes any choices at all in the story is god. Maybe the snake, but I doubt it. Maybe you believe the interpretation that the snake is really the devil, but either way, that's still the innocent humans who don't know any better doing what creatures that know more than them are telling them to do.
Click to expand...

First of all, had God not allowed ANY rejection possible, then there would be no free choice.

Eve understood what GOd said, and understood the issue, she repeated God's command, and even so, Adam (in the bible) takes most of the blame. They knew the issue and they chose one way.


No, he didn't. That's the whole point. They were innocent. They had no knowledge of good or evil. No idea that their actions could have consequences like that. The only reason they had been given not to eat the apple was that god said it would kill them. The snake told them it wouldn't. No knowledge of good or evil means no concept of deception or malice. Adam and Eve did nothing more than innocently believe the words of someone they thought knew more than they did, the same way a child does. You don't condemn a child for believing something they're told. And besides, god WAS lying. They didn't die from eating it. The "they became mortal because they ate it" is equally nonsensical, because they were obviously already mortal, or else wouldn't have any reason to fear death in the first place.

As a story of humans transgressing, the story makes absolutely no sense. It's the story of punishing children for acting like children. And then their punishment is to grow up. And this is somehow a bad thing. Growing up is good.

Again, not a taint. That's just growing up. And I think that one important part of growing up is learning to take the bad with the good and not be overwhelmed by the bad. Which is something that people who obsess over sin seem to lack. A few bad decisions don't wipe out a good life. We're not sinners. We're also not saints. We're in the middle. And that's just fine. There is no reason to be ashamed of that, nor to be forgiven for it.
Click to expand...

They did have knowledge, the knowledge of good and evil was moral authority, i.e. "being like God." I don't know where your getting this interpretation but it certianly isn't what the origional writer intended ...

You're simply not understanding the underlying theology, the question throughout the hebrew scriptures is "who has moral authority." God or man ....
 
head of joaquin said:
For Jesus and Paul sin involved egotism and narcissism, putting oneself above others. That's a kind of psychological prison. The promise of the gospel is to break out of that trap, by accepting the power of God's love to transform us into loving person, which is a better way to live. We don't give anything up by becoming loving persons, we gain the enormous gift of becoming fully authentically human.

It's too bad this idea, which is simple and insightful, was derailed by the obscure notion of inheriting some original taint or other. It sent doctrinal historical Christianity into a tailspin of guilt-mongering and negativity. The gospel is a positive message, not an abnegation.
Click to expand...

Read Romans 5 ... Paul clearly understood that sin began with Adam, he was refering to the Genesis story. Remember Jesus was a jew, and Paul came out of the jewish tradition and treated teh Hebrew scriptures as authority.

Christianity missed the boat when it rejected Marcionism, which created a canon that didn't include the Hebrew scriptures. The Hebrew scriptures are wonderful and insightful texts about the human condition, which dwarf any other narrative from antiquity in complexity and moral fullness; but they are unrelated to the Christian gospel of transformation through God's love.
Click to expand...

Then why do Jesus and Paul and others in the NT quote the Hebrew scriptures non stop ....
 
RGacky3 said:
That's like saying "if someone ends up in a Gulag, IT'S THEIR OWN FAULT for rejecting Stalin."

The Catholic vision of Hell is not biblical.
Click to expand...

Well, try rejecting Christ, then, and see how that works out for you.

Hell is very real place, according to even Jesus himself.
 
Logicman said:
Well, try rejecting Christ, then, and see how that works out for you.

Hell is very real place, according to even Jesus himself.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. jesus talked about Sheol (the common grave), and about gehennah, which was associated with total destruction, i.e. cutting off, i.e. non existance.
 
RGacky3 said:
No it wasn't. jesus talked about Sheol (the common grave), and about gehennah, which was associated with total destruction, i.e. cutting off, i.e. non existance.
Click to expand...

No, you're wrong. Try looking at the scriptures in context:

Jesus on Hell

From Luke 16 - The Rich Man and Lazarus:

19 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

25 "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

27 "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29 "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30 "'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31 "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

WHAT JESUS CHRIST SAYS ABOUT HELL! "fire" Matt 7:19, 13:40, 25:41 "everlasting fire" Matt 18:8, 25:41 "eternal damnation" Mark 3:29 "hell fire" Matt 5:22, 18:9, Mark 9:47 "damnation" Matt 23:14, Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47 "damnation of hell" Matt 23:33 "resurrection of damnation" John 5:29 "furnace of fire" Matt 13:42, 50 "the fire that never shall be quenched" Mark 9:43, 45 "the fire is not quenched" Mark 9:44, 46, 48 "Where their worm does not die" Mark 9:44, 46, 48 "wailing and gnashing of teeth" Matt 13:42, 50 "weeping and gnashing of teeth" Matt 8:12, 22:13, 25:30 "torments" Luke 16:23 "tormented in this flame" Luke 16:24 "place of torment" Luke 16:28 "outer darkness" Matt 8:12, 22:13 "everlasting punishment" Matt 25:46 (Note: original source site no longer active to link to)

Jesus Christ gave a solemn warning in Matthew 7:21-23:

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. . . MANY will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Watch "23 Minutes in Hell" Video - Bill Wiese

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=648563944666093503#docid=-750107269338052182
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Ok, this is something that has had me dumbfounded, for years. Maybe one of you "believers" can help me out on this.

It's a given that like the tale of Noah's Ark, which a vast majority of Christians agree is not a factual historical account, the story of Adam and Eve is just an allegory. Very few people today still believe that there really was a Garden of Eden wherein Adam's rib begot the first mortal to be seduced by a snake which, thereby, forever angered the Lord to such lengths that he vengefully condemns thousands of future generations to hell. However, Christian base their entire belief system: Man's Original Sin and its atonement by Christ; on the Adam and Eve story being real.

What gives?
Click to expand...

The garden was tended not requiring man to toil. But the fall from grace occurred when man kind violated God's only rule. but yes all sins were paid for by Christs sacrifice. It's not necessarily based on the events of Genesis occurring exactly as described we are all sinners it is our nature. We all would have eaten of the proverbial fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. We all do.
 
calamity said:
Ok, this is something that has had me dumbfounded, for years. Maybe one of you "believers" can help me out on this.

It's a given that like the tale of Noah's Ark, which a vast majority of Christians agree is not a factual historical account, the story of Adam and Eve is just an allegory. Very few people today still believe that there really was a Garden of Eden wherein Adam's rib begot the first mortal to be seduced by a snake which, thereby, forever angered the Lord to such lengths that he vengefully condemns thousands of future generations to hell. However, Christian base their entire belief system: Man's Original Sin and its atonement by Christ; on the Adam and Eve story being real.

What gives?
Click to expand...

A vast majority of believers believe in the flood and Adam and Eve. It actually happened.
 
Logicman said:
No, you're wrong. Try looking at the scriptures in context:

Jesus on Hell

From Luke 16 - The Rich Man and Lazarus:

19 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

25 "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

27 "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29 "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30 "'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31 "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

WHAT JESUS CHRIST SAYS ABOUT HELL! "fire" Matt 7:19, 13:40, 25:41 "everlasting fire" Matt 18:8, 25:41 "eternal damnation" Mark 3:29 "hell fire" Matt 5:22, 18:9, Mark 9:47 "damnation" Matt 23:14, Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47 "damnation of hell" Matt 23:33 "resurrection of damnation" John 5:29 "furnace of fire" Matt 13:42, 50 "the fire that never shall be quenched" Mark 9:43, 45 "the fire is not quenched" Mark 9:44, 46, 48 "Where their worm does not die" Mark 9:44, 46, 48 "wailing and gnashing of teeth" Matt 13:42, 50 "weeping and gnashing of teeth" Matt 8:12, 22:13, 25:30 "torments" Luke 16:23 "tormented in this flame" Luke 16:24 "place of torment" Luke 16:28 "outer darkness" Matt 8:12, 22:13 "everlasting punishment" Matt 25:46

Jesus Christ gave a solemn warning in Matthew 7:21-23:

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. . . MANY will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Click to expand...

The Rich man an Lazarus was a parable, obviously the whole thing was hyperboly and metaphor, the word used is "Hades" ... not hell, which is used synonemously with Sheol .... used as the common grave where everyone went, even Jesus Acts 2:27,31, Sheol was NEVER understood to be a place of torment, it was just a word used for "death." Or the state of being dead

I'll take care of some of these texts ... (which I KNOW you haven't actually examined yourself, rather you've just copied and pasted from a website).

Matthew 7

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.

Matthew 13
36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples approached him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; 38 the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.


I'ts a metaphore .... i.e. a fruit tree that isn't producing fruit is used as fire wood, the same with the weeds .... no hell there.

Matthew 25

41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”


What is the eternal fire prepared for the devil? Gehenna, people in first century palestine would have known that as the trash dump, where you took trash, dumped it and it was gone .... forever .... which is why the opposite is eternal life .... why? Because the eternal fire is an eternal CUTTING OFF.

The same goes for Matthew 18 ... which uses gehennah.

What is Gehenna?

Matthew 10:

28 Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna).[e]

It's the DESTRUCTION of body and soul.

The "damnnation" scriptures don't say anything about hell .... damnation is the opposite of eternal life ... The same in John 5 .... the condemnation is the opposite of eternal life ... Not hell.

Do you see why you have to do your own research, and ACTUAL research, meaning learning the bible, reading it, learning what the greek and hebrew words actually mean, understand the context ...

Paul said the wages sin pays is death, and when one dies the wages of sin have been paid .... that's IT ... You can copy and paste scriptures all you want, but unless you actually READ them, understand the origional words and context, and make a proper exigesis ... you'll end up looking like an idiot that doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
A vast majority of believers believe in the flood and Adam and Eve. It actually happened.
Click to expand...
Like young earth creationism, only a minority still believe in the literal interpretation of the Flood and A&E. It only makes sense. The stories are not realistic. However, they are excellent allegories.
 
calamity said:
Like young earth creationism, only a minority still believe in the literal interpretation of the Flood and A&E. It only makes sense. The stories are not realistic. However, they are excellent allegories.
Click to expand...

And where is your documentation of this? I have never met a Christian that doesn't believe these things happened.
 
RGacky3 said:
The Rich man an Lazarus was a parable, obviously the whole thing was hyperboly and metaphor, the word used is "Hades" ... not hell, which is used synonemously with Sheol .... used as the common grave where everyone went, even Jesus Acts 2:27,31, Sheol was NEVER understood to be a place of torment, it was just a word used for "death." Or the state of being dead
Click to expand...

Sorry, not buying it. A parable is given to portray spiritual truths - in this case that there is a literal Hell and that people suffer there.

RGacky3 said:
Matthew 7

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.

Matthew 13
36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples approached him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; 38 the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.
[/COLOR]

I'ts a metaphore .... i.e. a fruit tree that isn't producing fruit is used as fire wood, the same with the weeds .... no hell there.
Click to expand...

Nope, they speak of a literal Hell. Your other examples fail accordingly for the same reason. And that's because you have to look at all of the examples.

You might also want to consider Daniel 12:2 - where people who are dead awaken shame and everlasting contempt. So much for just being dead in the grave.

Here's more on Gehenna, which blows your arguments out of the water:

Both body and soul are destroyed there

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28). No power on earth can destroy a soul. The soul is a part of a person that exists beyond physical death (Revelation 20:4). "Gehenna" has to be a place to destroy both the body and the soul.

A person goes there after death

"And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him" (Luke 12:4-5). It is no threat to throw a dead body into a grave, a junkyard or a furnace. But God has power to cast a person, whose body is dead, into "Gehenna." There is only one reason to fear the person that can throw you into Gehenna: you must be aware that you are cast there. So Gehenna is hell, the place where the unrighteous dead are cast.

Its fire shall never be quenched

"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:" (Mark 9:43, 45). "Gehenna" is said to be a "fire that shall never be quenched". The earth and the works therein shall all be burned up (2 Peter 3:10), but they will be replaced with a new earth wherein righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1). So "Gehenna" could not mean an earthly place, since all fires shall be quenched on earth. But hell's fire shall never be quenched. It is clear: Gehenna is hell, not a trash dump.

Even though the word "Gehenna" comes from the Valley of Hinnom, simply rendering it as "garbage dump" or "valley of waste disposal" or "burning garbage" could not be an accurate translations, because that's not what Jesus and the apostles meant when they used the word. It meant "the place where people go when they die." That's what we mean when we say "hell". http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/gehenna.asp

Feel free to think otherwise, though.
 
Last edited:
davidtaylorjr said:
And where is your documentation of this? I have never met a Christian that doesn't believe these things happened.
Click to expand...
Biblical scholars on the flood:
An informed reading of the Genesis story neither permits nor requires it to be a universal, global flood, and geology does not support a universal reading. A non-global interpretation does not undermine the lessons learned from the Genesis Flood account that are pertinent to the life of faith.
How should we interpret the Genesis flood account? | BioLogos
Click to expand...

Allegorical interpretations:
In light of scientific findings regarding the age and origins of the universe and life, many modern Christian theologians, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant, have rejected literalistic interpretations of Genesis in favour of allegorical or poetic interpretations such as the literary framework view.
Allegorical interpretations of Genesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
calamity said:
Biblical scholars on the flood:


Allegorical interpretations:
Click to expand...

The link you gave about the flood does not say at all that the flood isn't a historical event.

And the 2nd was a wikipedia article that doesn't say most or is even cited.... :roll:
 
davidtaylorjr said:
The link you gave about the flood does not say at all that the flood isn't a historical event.

And the 2nd was a wikipedia article that doesn't say most or is even cited.... :roll:
Click to expand...

That the universal flood was not historic is pretty much a given.
The Flood: Not Global, Barely Local, Mostly Theological, Pt 1 | The BioLogos Forum

And, the allegorical reference was just to point out that huge swaths of religious organizationa are accepting the fact taht most of the stuff in the Bible is not historical.

Either way, that's not the point of the thread: to debate the validity of the various myths; and I believe debating it further takes the conversation outside the rules of this sub-forum.
 
calamity said:
That the universal flood was not historic is pretty much a given.
The Flood: Not Global, Barely Local, Mostly Theological, Pt 1 | The BioLogos Forum

And, the allegorical reference was just to point out that huge swaths of religious organizationa are accepting the fact taht most of the stuff in the Bible is not historical.

Either way, that's not the point of the thread: to debate the validity of the various myths; and I believe debating it further takes the conversation outside the rules of this sub-forum.
Click to expand...

It directly addresses the OP.....

That being said, God is a perfect and Holy God, man sinned and had to be punished. That is the crux of original sin and why the world is the way it is today.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
It directly addresses the OP.....
Click to expand...
You're nitpicking a qualifier.

That being said, God is a perfect and Holy God, man sinned and had to be punished. That is the crux of original sin and why the world is the way it is today.
Click to expand...
God seems puny and vindictive. But, hey. To each his own.
 
calamity said:
You're nitpicking a qualifier.


God seems puny and vindictive. But, hey. To each his own.
Click to expand...

How so? Remind you that this is the religious forum, I thought you weren't supposed to mock religion here?
 
davidtaylorjr said:
And where is your documentation of this? I have never met a Christian that doesn't believe these things happened.
Click to expand...

You need to leave your echo chamber. I never met a Christian who did believe these texts were literal; except an occasional uneducated one.

You do realize that only evangelicals preach the heresy of literalism, which is a newfangled Anglo-American doctrine and has no basis in traditional Christianity.
 
head of joaquin said:
You need to leave your echo chamber. I never met a Christian who did believe these texts were literal; except an occasional uneducated one.

You do realize that only evangelicals preach the heresy of literalism, which is a newfangled Anglo-American doctrine and has no basis in traditional Christianity.
Click to expand...

History would actually prove you wrong on that. Only in recent years did people start saying it wasn't fact.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
It directly addresses the OP.....

That being said, God is a perfect and Holy God, man sinned and had to be punished. That is the crux of original sin and why the world is the way it is today.
Click to expand...

Explain why man "had to be punished"? The claim has no basis in the bible and is simply a reflection of the theology of a certain punitive personality trait, that regrettably captured doctrinal Christianity.
 
head of joaquin said:
Explain why man "had to be punished"? The claim has no basis in the bible and is simply a reflection of the theology of a certain punitive personality trait, that regrettably captured doctrinal Christianity.
Click to expand...

Genesis Chapter 2:

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Click to expand...
 
davidtaylorjr said:
History would actually prove you wrong on that. Only in recent years did people start saying it wasn't fact.
Click to expand...

Do you even know the history of literalism and when it infested the church. You might want to start googling. You're not going to like what you find.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom