Original Sin is a Good Thing

reply to post by Grimpachi


Well, I'm sorry Grim, that I can't see my way around such in your face truth.
You have my philosophy on the matter.

reply to post by KnightLight


Night Knight!

tetra50
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

With your list of serpent worshipping, one has to wonder, even, if the Christian Bible is perhaps a masked "serpent" religion…..
Certainly, there are many instances within the books, themselves, where it is unclear which God is being referred to, as more than one is being referenced. And it's also been said and written and observed, that hell has it's own interpretation of the bible.
Interesting thread, btw.
Tetra

Well thank you. I was bored and couldn't find a thread to entertain me when I remembered something from an article and wrote this. It isn't really going the way I had hoped, but threads rarely do. Oh well.

If you check the list again I highlighted one of the names. I am not sure if it means anything however I know a lot of Sumerian mythos made it into the bible. I am agnostic about a creator Deity but atheistic towards mans religions. If I ever changed beliefs I would be a deist actually I took some online test that said I am actually an agnostic pantheist.

Well as for the thread the idea that gaining knowledge was a bad thing seems like it should be the wrong message unless of course those writing it wanted people to be kept in the dark. I am sure every story in the bible has been changed probably radically before they were written down to fit the needs of the time. It is easy for me to imagine the moral once being that it is better to be free and learn than to be kept in the dark.

No one will ever know what they originally were meant to teach, but it is fun to think out of the box.

reply to post by Akragon

What do we take from it? God is a cruel dictator?

Yes, that's one possible interpretation. A warning smuggled into this universe by agents of the True God, whose place in it has been usurped by the Demiurge Yahweh. Don't trust Yahweh, says the message, he's sadistic and cruel, and has set up the game so that humans must always lose, and suffer. See through his lies, walk out of his treacherous wonderland and face reality on your own two feet.

That's the way a Gnostic might interpret it.

the "snake" was actually an angel of the true God, trying to release adam and eve from the torments of the evil God

Yes, that would fit too. But these ancient myths carry multiple meanings, or can be made to.

An analytical psychologist, for example, might see the Adam and Eve story as a metaphor for growing up, including the necessary rebellion against one's parents that is part of that process, and the consequence that one is expelled from the Eden of the parental home and forced to fend for oneself in the hard world outside. Original sin, in this reading, is simply puberty.

God doesn't tempt man... what would you call that?

James 1:13. Yes, the Bible does contradict itself on this point, as it does on so many others. Of course, when there's a contradiction, it's usually Man's fault. God always comes out of the ruck smelling of roses.

Concerning original sin, I must disagree with you. The words of Jesus you quoted (not quite correctly) appear in three of the Gospels — Matthew, Mark and Luke — so the ancient writers obviously considered it important. But here, too, as in the Garden of Eden story, interpretations may vary. What Jesus is reported to have said was 'the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these'. He is not on record, however, as having explained what he meant by 'such as these'. Perhaps he meant that even those tainted by original sin would have their share in the kingdom. Perhaps he meant that children, as examples of fallen humanity, were typical inheritors of the kingdom. There is nothing in the Gospels to refute that interpretation.

You wrote,

Children are innocent... They're taught to do evil

Actually, the opposite is true. Babies are monsters of id, totally selfish and lacking any kind of conscience or morality. Such qualities develop a little later, partly through training and partly through the instincts of empathy and altruism, which start to kick in about the time the child learns to walk. Children are born evil and must be taught to do good.

This is 'original sin'. St. Augustine of Hippo explains it very well in the Confessions.

In thy sight (O God) there is none free from sin, not even the infant who has lived but a day upon this earth... Nor was it good, even in that time, to strive to get by crying what, if it had been given me, would have been hurtful; or to be bitterly indignant at those who, because they were older... and wiser than I, would not indulge my capricious desires. Was it a good thing for me to try, by struggling as hard as I could, to harm them for not obeying me, even when it would have done me harm to have been obeyed? Thus, the infant's innocence lies in the weakness of his body and not in the infant mind. I have myself observed a baby to be jealous, though it could not speak; it was livid as it watched another infant at the breast... Is this innocence, when the fountain of milk is flowing fresh and abundant, that another who needs it should not be allowed to share it, even though he requires such nourishment to sustain his life? — St. Augustine, Confessions, Ch.7

The concept of original sin is malignant not because it is false (it is not) but because preachers and theologians use it to make excuses for God. Original sin is used to explain the paradoxes of theodicy: how can a supposedly good and omnipotent deity allow death and suffering to exist? Oh, well, He didn't, really, but Adam and Eve sinned against him and brought all these things into being by doing so.

That, of course, is specious, dangerous nonsense, but you can't really blame the Bible for it: most of the scriptural texts quoted to justify the doctrine of original sin have to be stretched really hard to fit the concept. At most, they indicate that human beings are inherently or instinctively wicked. See, for example, here. So far as I know, there is no text stating that men and women are born wicked because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, or that mortal death and suffering are the result of it.

reply to post by Holographicmeat

Children are a clean slate from the get go and are molded by the adults in their life. So, no. I don't believe in original sin. We are all products of our environment and experiences. That's what I think.

Are you saying there is no such thing as inborn ability that varies from person to person?

Are you saying we are not born with instincts?

Are you saying that we could not learn language without being taught?

Well as for the thread the idea that gaining knowledge was a bad thing seems like it should be the wrong message unless of course those writing it wanted people to be kept in the dark. I am sure every story in the bible has been changed probably radically before they were written down to fit the needs of the time. It is easy for me to imagine the moral once being that it is better to be free and learn than to be kept in the dark.

reply to post by Grimpachi


emphasis mine on that passage. This is the thing here for me: What seems a simple story in Genesis, about a hugely complicated topic: our creation and our location!location!location!, as a real estate guide might put it….LOL, is actually hugely important to put the rest of the books within some kind of context, and raises more questions about creation and our place within it, and any possible meanings, than almost anything else in the text.

As I mentioned earlier, what is the possible meaning, anyway, of combining this tale of morality and explanation of our creation and later location in a metaphor to do with eating and location and knowledge, or living without it? Even the way these issues are symbolized seems to mean a great deal: a serpent for Satan, an apple possible symbolizing knowledge, etc., and the Garden of Eden eating no apples from the Tree of Life, or eating from that tree and experiencing "the world at large," with attendant knowledge the serpentclaimed God didn't want them (Adam and Eve) to know about or have at their disposal.

See what I mean? I'm not communicating it all that well, or as well as I'd like, but this is what I'm getting at. For all we know, the Garden of Eden represented freedom, not a pretty cage, as we generally tend to translate the story.
And I don't think it's nearly as simply two sided as to say that the people writing it either thought gaining knowledge was a bad thing, or just wanted to keep us in the dark.

What I mean here, is who is to say, be the arbiter of what actual "knowledge," is anyway. Knowledge of good and evil? If we were to leave the protection of the Garden, it's assumed we'd need that, right? And yet, evil was there with them, if Satan was, indeed, the serpent…..so they weren't exactly protected from evil within the garden, either.

Anyway, as I said, I think it raises lots of questions, and certainly shows the reader of the Bible, at the outset, that it will be full, and is full, of contradictions…..
Regards,
Tetra

reply to post by Grimpachi


There is a difference between gaining knowledge and eating from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil". Fall from grace by believing the ego knowing better than others just because it is itself even when it is told it is wrong on all sides.

On a spiritual note the curse of the old still stands until humanity free themselves from the conditioning of this behaviour. Jesus from my point of view did not come to free you from original sin but came to tell you what to do in other words, since to many people did not understand the spiritual meaning of what they where reading. Follow the golden rule.

God do not curse people who wanted knowledge/understanding and symbiosis with god who follow the golden rule. The ignorance is thinking you do have knowledge of good and evil without connection to the spirit of god.

BELIEVERpriest
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

The world is corrupt today because of the knowledge of good and evil. Some knowledge is not worth learning.

I dont know how to skin a human being while keeping him/her alive and in agony through the entire process. I have no use or desire for that knowledge. Does that make me ignorant?

. At least someone noticed it is "knowledge of good and evil" not knowledge. Falling into lower level duality instead of trying to stay in non dualistic mode.

Holographicmeat

tetra50

Holographicmeat
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

The only original sin a child has is their parent's. Children are a clean slate from the get go and are molded by the adults in their life. So, no. I don't believe in original sin. We are all products of our environment and experiences. That's what I think.

I thought children were totally exempt from "original," or any other sin, totally innocent, as no child is supposed to inherit the sins of the father (by extension, parents/family.)

o·rig·i·nal sin
nounCHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
1.
the tendency to sin innate in all human beings, held to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall. The concept of original sin was developed in the writings of St. Augustine.

That is the original sin I was referring to. It's hogwash. A child automatically inherits the sins of their father because the parents are the ones that mold that childs mind.

You can mold the conditioning in the child's mind but molding the soul is harder. There are souls that are further along that have protection against to much molding and will resist it and trying to mold them will have an opposite effect. But I do agree that humanity collectively have a conditioning problem that they seem to have a hard time evolving away from where the condition to unwise instead of condition towards wisdom.

The soul either shines thru or darks thru depending on the nature of the soul.

reply to post by Astyanax

Actually, the opposite is true. Babies are monsters of id, totally selfish and lacking any kind of conscience or morality. Such qualities develop a little later, partly through training and partly through the instincts of empathy and altruism, which start to kick in about the time the child learns to walk.

Considering a baby knows nothing but the self, why would it not be selfish?

Selfishness does not matter when one is too young to affect others lives... OF course they don't know morality, or have any kind of conscience... its a baby

Children are born evil and must be taught to do good.

Nonsense... Children are born innocent, and are taught good and or evil... they know neither, nor do they have the ability to do either

This is 'original sin'. St. Augustine of Hippo explains it very well in the Confessions.

Oh the folly of the early church... I read this over several times, and honestly I find it a rather disgusting perspective...

In thy sight (O God) there is none free from sin, not even the infant who has lived but a day upon this earth... Nor was it good, even in that time, to strive to get by crying

So crying is evil...

A child cries due to a bodily reaction... its hungry, its tired, it wants attention... None of which are evil when something is only recently introduced to this painful world

what, if it had been given me, would have been hurtful; or to be bitterly indignant at those who, because they were older... and wiser than I, would not indulge my capricious desires.

So let me get this straight... this guy believes a child would have the intention of hurting someone if said child didn't get what he wanted?

really...

I hope im misunderstanding

Was it a good thing for me to try, by struggling as hard as I could, to harm them for not obeying me, even when it would have done me harm to have been obeyed?

And yet again said child would try as hard as he could to harm those that did not give him what he wanted...if he could?

Really........

Thus, the infant's innocence lies in the weakness of his body and not in the infant mind. I have myself observed a baby to be jealous, though it could not speak; it was livid as it watched another infant at the breast...

utterly disgusting... A child does not know jealousy... A child doesn't even know what he's looking at, let alone have the mind to be jealous of another child suckling...

Is this innocence, when the fountain of milk is flowing fresh and abundant, that another who needs it should not be allowed to share it, even though he requires such nourishment to sustain his life?

Yes... it is innocence... the child is not Jealous, its hungry...

perhaps im not understanding what this guy is saying... but as far as I can see... he needs a punch if the face for his ASSumptions

Nice Saint ye got there



By the way, that Jesus quote i used was from memory... And only because i was in a hurry

Pardon my lack of exact wording

Nevermind

reply to post by Grimpachi


I used to be a christian, but I'm not anymore. I'm agnostic atheist, I think.

So what do I think about the garden of eden story? I think God was like a farmer and the cattle were not obeying him. They were eating on the ferns he told them not to eat. He was angry and fenced off the house, forbidding them from ever entering again. Later on, the cattle had a disease, so the farmer killed most of them. Still further on, the farmer felt sorry for the cattle and tried to get into their head by pretending he was a cow. The cattle saw that he was an outsider and some of the bulls turned on him: they almost killed him. He had to be led out on a stretcher that looked like a cross. He later recovered. Some of the cows faintly remembered it and, if they were humans, would have created a religion around the farmer. The farmer still loved his cows, but was thereafter weary of trying to get into their head to understand them. Either way, the cattle have great respect for the farmer and always have. To them, he's a source of wrath and wisdom.

As a christian, I think I understood differently. It's a bit more complicated. What Adam and Eve did was comparable to how people can desire knowledge and material goods over God. When Eve ate the fruit, it was like something very sinful. She was desiring the power of God without the wisdom. She disobeyed God, the one who had given her the garden and the fruits of the trees and peace from war or conflict. She was being selfish. Adam wasn't any better since when Eve told him to eat, he ate. Just a dumb bloke. They became aware of their nakedness; sexual desire? At this point forward, Adam and Eve had become selfish. God had to block them off from the garden because they had become aware of good and evil. Only through a life of faith and sacrifice could humans ever reach heaven again.

Selfishness is a sort of blindness to higher realities and is probably the primary source of sin. Fundamentally, sin is the disregard or loss of respect of higher realities. When one murders or rapes or lies or cheats or envies or denies God or sins, they disregarded or lost respect for God's laws which are a higher reality. Selfishness snakes its way into us and is hard to escape because it weaves elaborate deceptions. The bible is a lengthy allegory about its folly.

The bible says we cannot eliminate sin in this life, so I guess selfishness can't be eliminated either. Of course, this is just my own idea about it.

The bible says you must believe in Christ with all your heart and soul and devote yourself to the word of God. This necessarily means you must not be too friendly with your materialistic desires, less you be deceived in the same way Eve and Adam were. I admit, if this is to be believed, I myself am a sinner and have turned from God. I just don't have the faith anymore. Yet in the back of my mind, there's a part of me still wants to do the right thing - whatever that's. Does that make me more of a threat because I am armed with past christian experience and yet have lost my faith in God? I think the bible says Satan speaks half truths and maybe because of my brush with christianity I too can speak half truths.

The world is corrupt today because of the knowledge of good and evil. Some knowledge is not worth learning.

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest


haha luckily the Omniscient (not) spacefaring star traveller called jehovah banished them...wouldnt want them to eat of immortality (tree of life) .
Sadly believers and non believers fall under the spell living in this illusion matrix. We are living in a slave planet. The vampiric jehovah demiurge wants you a slave. Thats why kings, presidents etc swear fealty to the so called higher power; and it aint your true creator.
Thats why they created fiat money and taxation and inflation. You're forever a slave. Bonded and registered from birth. Like cattle. Money is nothing but energy and time. They've looted both.
Knowledge is everything
When you worship any Abrahamic religion you are a slave to the system

Why seek the inferior 'Knowledge of Good and Evil' when Adam had already inhereted Divine Righteousness. Adam and Eve were not kept in the dark. They were told what not to do to maintain incorruption

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest


But if they had divine righteousness why were they denied the tree of life? Why did they need the tree of life for extended life. And how did they live for over 800 years after Eden? hmm

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

What freedom does God have? He has freedom to choose. To exist or not to exist

How can an everlasting god choose or even entertain the concept of choosing to NOT exist? It doesnt make sense

reply to post by Grimpachi


from your op

in order to gain knowledge, because ignorance is not bliss and blind obedience is not a supreme virtue.

further you state

comeback in no small part to some groups( ahem zealots) who are ignorant. Now I could go on and on about those groups

But you have gone on, in fact you started a thread lambasting people who choose not to vaccinate. In all fairness you did state that you dont trust Big Pharma.

In order to gain knowledge did you ever consider that Vaccines may perhaps create more illness for doctors to treat.

What about Bill Gates and his depopulation through vaccines agenda...Do you think that once you have outlived your usefulness you might be next.

Not trying to thread drift but trying to work out where you're coming from.

reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight

But you have gone on, in fact you started a thread lambasting people who choose not to vaccinate. In all fairness you did state that you dont trust Big Pharma.

You are correct I have started a thread stating such.You know those are two separate issues don't you? Not trusting big pharma is not the same as saying medicine is bad. Actually I have started several threads on the topic. Choose one or many and post on the subject there.

In order to gain knowledge did you ever consider that Vaccines may perhaps create more illness for doctors to treat.

Yes I had considered it however the evidence did not support such a stance so I reevaluated.

What about Bill Gates and his depopulation through vaccines agenda.

What about Bill Gates? If you took the time to look into what he actually said in context I doubt you would pose such a question.

Do you think that once you have outlived your usefulness you might be next.

Next for what?

Not trying to thread drift but trying to work out where you're coming from.

It seems you look at my thread history but didn' take much time to read what I posted. I try to state where I am coming from as concise as possible in each. If you post questions on those positions in the appropriate threads I will do my best to elaborate. Please do so in the appropriate threads to prevent thread drift here.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Much of the Christian world believes that a talking snake convinced Adam and Eve to eat the fruit forbidden by God, who then became so angry that he condemned humankind to be born with what Christians call “original sin.”

I think this story is an artifact of the ongoing conflict between the earth gods and the sky gods.
Back in the distant past of the religion that eventually devolved to what we have now, there was a way of offering sacrifices which was to find a really big rock, and cutting a groove in it that ran down along the side and guided the blood of the animal being sacrificed on the top of it, to a place under it that only the god could get it and supposedly eat it.
The alternative would be to burn the animal intact, a "whole" offering, where the smoke goes up and the god eats the smoke out of the air somehow receiving a "spiritual" feeding.

The serpent would be representing the earth gods, and YHWH would be representing the sky gods.

reply to post by Akragon

Nonsense... Children are born innocent, and are taught good and or evil... they know neither, nor do they have the ability to do either.

This is a dogmatic statement which simple observation will disprove.

What does 'innocent' mean? Does it mean the child has no knowledge of the consequences of his actions and therefore cannot be held accountable for them? That is obviously false: the child already knows to manipulate its parents by crying for what it wants, and it does so without any compunction. As all who have been fathers or mothers know, early parenthood is durance under a tiny tyrant who has absolutely no care for anyone or anything but itself.

As it happens, I don't believe in wholly good or evil people anyway; only in good or evil actions, or intentions. Babies and small children are entirely capable of both — hence, in shorthand, 'born evil'.

So let me get this straight... this guy believes a child would have the intention of hurting someone if said child didn't get what he wanted?

Yes, absolutely. Are you, or have you been a parent? I think every hands-on parent understands this well. I can recall, from my own small childhood, both my own motives and actions, and the actions of other children too. Until we were stopped and punished, we did things without compunction.

A child does not know jealousy... A child doesn't even know what he's looking at, let alone have the mind to be jealous of another child suckling...

If you don't have much experience of children, what about pets? Have you never seen a cat or dog show envy or jealousy?

Pardon my lack of exact wording

No skin off my nose, but if you don't state your meaning exactly, you cannot complain if others misunderstand you.

reply to post by Astyanax

Babies and small children are entirely capable of both — hence, in shorthand, 'born evil'.

They are of course "capable".
I did have the privilege of knowing a child who was actually not evil in any way (could have been the Christ Child if I didn't know better), but she did eventually gradually get "evil" because of some rather scoundrelous people who she had to grow up in the midst of.