It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

John Galt on Christianity: The evil of the Original Sin

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
First we have to believe we are sinful by nature, and believe this without any proof. Then we must work to overcome our original sin, which is impossible, caused by Adam eating the fruit of knowledge, giving him reason and intelligence, meaning reason and intelligence is antithesis to the mythical garden of eden, which is more of a robotic garden then anything else, where Adam was a robot serving God prior to his knowledge, it was because he gained the knowledge of God and saw behind the curtains that he "sinned" well I'd take that any day of the week compared to living in the proverbial robot garden.




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I feel the same way as you. That's why I proselytize the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to christians who sinfully choose to disbelieve in Him and His noodly appendage lol. It actually works quite well and demonstrates the logical fallacies in their arguments.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
The robot-like state in the garden of Eden is just one interpretation and has nothing to do with freedom, and since the story is taken from the Bible, we should critique it against the rest of the book - it doesn't hold water.

The very fact that Adam/Eve *could* make the decision to break out shows that they were not robots, and that they could exercise free will.

Moreover, Jesus is described as being a perfect man, equivalent to the original Adam (pre-sin). I don't think there is anything written in the gospels or the new testament that will make you believe that he had a robot-like state of mind. He certainly possessed the knowledge of what was good and what was bad.

So, another theory, though interesting from a philosophical standpoint, isn't biblical.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by gandalph
The robot-like state in the garden of Eden is just one interpretation and has nothing to do with freedom, and since the story is taken from the Bible, we should critique it against the rest of the book - it doesn't hold water.

The very fact that Adam/Eve *could* make the decision to break out shows that they were not robots, and that they could exercise free will.

Moreover, Jesus is described as being a perfect man, equivalent to the original Adam (pre-sin). I don't think there is anything written in the gospels or the new testament that will make you believe that he had a robot-like state of mind. He certainly possessed the knowledge of what was good and what was bad.

So, another theory, though interesting from a philosophical standpoint, isn't biblical.



biblically speaking,God had two sons, Jesus and Adam. Biblically speaking, Cain and abel must have had incense to carry on humanity.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Wrong on the first count, right on the second count.

However, this has nothing to do with the original post, so let's just stay on topic.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
The original sin doctrine is one invented by an insane, power-hungry church centuries ago. To my knowledge, nowhere in the bible does it say anything of the sort, unless you take the scripture out of context, or interpret things literally when they obviously weren't meant to be taken literally.

TL;DR - I am a Christian and I agree with John Galt. Original sin is ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by gandalph
reply to post by filosophia
 


Wrong on the first count, right on the second count.

However, this has nothing to do with the original post, so let's just stay on topic.


It's on topic, the bible is a compilation of nonsense, which basically is the main idea of the opening post of this thread. If Adam and Jesus were both pre-sin, it means when the bible said that God created the first man, Adam, the bible is lying, since Jesus had to have also been made. Technically, if Jesus is pre-sin, then Adam is not the first person since the first person is Jesus. If Jesus is God, then there is no reason for Jesus to call God "father" in the book of John. So you see, anything pertaining to the nonsense of the bible is relevant to this thread.
edit on 6-1-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Like so much more in the "bible" this story hides a great truth. It hides it because and the time, and apparently now as well, humans were incapable of appreciating the true scope of God's creation. So, a fanciful story has to suffice. Believe me guys, "original sin" is a bum rap. There ain't any. And, humans are not born into any condition for which they must feel guilty about. The higher truths of all this nonsense escapes all the religions so pay them no mind and go on just trying to do the best that you can do and don't be concerned about anything else. Or, option two, go on wondering WTF...

Evil schmevil..... We are not born in sin.
edit on 6-1-2011 by trailertrash because: typo



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


excuse me... "incense"?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I take it you mean incest? Cain killed Abel for a start, so unless he's into necrophilia...

More to the point, if we are taking the book of genesis to be historical fact (which I, obviously, don't) who was Cain's wife? Eve?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by BobbinHood
 


I don't know if I'm just making this up, but I'm sure I read somewhere that the vatican had come out and admitted the story of genesis was in fact metaphorical and was not to be taken as fact.

If so, then clearly original sin would not exist either, therefore what was the point in Jesus 'sacrificing' himself?

Not really directed at you, just saying



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by BobbinHood
 


I don't know if I'm just making this up, but I'm sure I read somewhere that the vatican had come out and admitted the story of genesis was in fact metaphorical and was not to be taken as fact.

If so, then clearly original sin would not exist either, therefore what was the point in Jesus 'sacrificing' himself?

Not really directed at you, just saying


not to mention that if jesus is god there's no real sacrifice, not like if a mortal man made the same sacrifice. many more illogical aspects of christianity.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
It's on topic, the bible is a compilation of nonsense, which basically is the main idea of the opening post of this thread.


I thought you were not the original poster, and missed the true intent of your posting



If Adam and Jesus were both pre-sin, it means when the bible said that God created the first man, Adam, the bible is lying, since Jesus had to have also been made. Technically, if Jesus is pre-sin, then Adam is not the first person since the first person is Jesus.


I think you're making it complicated and that you're confusing "pre-sin" with "without sin". Briefly:
1. Adam was created perfect, without sin. That's who he was prior to his sin, or "pre-sin". Eventually he sinned.
2. Jesus never sinned, thus always without sin. No "pre-sin" or "post-sin".
3. As a sidenote, the BIble speaks of many sons of God, it's not just Jesus and Adam.


If Jesus is God, then there is no reason for Jesus to call God "father" in the book of John.


You're quite right, the BIble doesn't teach that Jesus was God. They're clearly distinct beings, and Jesus never claimed to be God himself. The teaching that Jesus is God is part of the Trinity doctrine, which is not a biblical teaching.


So you see, anything pertaining to the nonsense of the bible is relevant to this thread.


Sure.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Exactly, I was reading a blog with a similar idea to that the other week. Link if you're interested

Did Jesus Make A Sacrifice?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
On the subject of "original sin", that was often meant by the churches to include their first act of sex. That was simply an invention by the church(es) for the control/influence of the masses.

God told Adam and Eve to procreate, thus it would not be the original sin.

The actual word "sin" as used either in greek or hebrew aramaic means to "fall short". to miss the mark. The sin was that Adam/Eve missed their mark of obedience to God.

Just some clarification on this idea of "original sin".



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by gandalph
 



You say jesus was born with out sin and he is infallible, but you also say, according to the bible, that every man (and woman) is created equally. You can't have both



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
filosophia

Lol, John Galt is a fictional character. Meh, how real are any of us here, either?

Ayn Rand's best take on the Eden story was in her own voice, I think. She wrote something to the effect that if Eve was upset to realize that she was naked, then at least she finally had somebody around who could appreciate her nakedness.


Then we must work to overcome our original sin, which is impossible, caused by Adam eating the fruit of knowledge, giving him reason and intelligence, meaning reason and intelligence is antithesis to the mythical garden of eden, which is more of a robotic garden then anything else, where Adam was a robot serving God prior to his knowledge, it was because he gained the knowledge of God and saw behind the curtains that he "sinned"

This analysis overlooks that knowledge of good and evil is a Hebrew idiom. It does not mean ignorance about, or the absence of a concept of, good and bad. Like all idioms, it is a figure of speech, not an inventory of contents.

The same phrase is used when Solomon is granted a gift from God. In that case, the attribute is typically translated as wisdom. Wisdom is not reason nor is it intelligence, which Adam and the Woman clearly already had, as evidenced by the archetypal incident of Adam naming the other animals, and the Woman's nuanced dialog with Serpent.

God never voices any objection to humans having knowledge of good and evil. He is delighted that Solomon asks for it. God readily grants Solomon's request, and throws in some bonus gifts besides. Like Adam and the Woman, Solomon already had reason and intelligence. His intelligent and reasonable choice of gift illustrates this.

Discernment-wisdom is, however, incompatible with immortality. Solomon was born mortal, while Adam and the Woman had mortality thrust upon them. It is definitely worth thinking about what the poet is saying about all this. But I am unsure that that is on-topic.

BobbinHood


I am a Christian and I agree with John Galt. Original sin is ridiculous.

The Eastern Orthodox Church also agrees. Apparently, the idea of a heritable guilt for the sin of the First Couple is of Roman origin. The story explains what baptism does, and explains why a ritual is necessary for spiritual salvation, rather than simply being somebody's symbolic initiation into a community of faith.

There is no indication that Hebrews generally interpreted this Hebrew story as being about a heritable guilt for our ancestors' misdemeanor, for which each of us needs to be forgiven.

BTW, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, it's Saint Adam and Saint Eve. They did the crime, they did the time. Case closed. They have their eternal life, and they have their knowledge of good and evil, and they have them in Paradise. They'll have those buff naked bodies back, too, by and by.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by BobbinHood
 


No man is without the temptation to act immorally. That is the meaning of "original sin." The story only explains that temptation is real and our "falling" from innocence and joy happens when we act upon the temptation (that is another word for urge) to sin. And it is true that the more you give into the urge or inner suggestion to act immorally, the weaker you are in resisting the suggestion or urge to act immorally. The less self discipline and self control you exercise, the less you will be able to exert over yourself. In studying criminalology, you learn these facts about human nature officially however, some people are just wise enough to pick up such simple concepts about human nature from a minimum self awarness or child rearing. The concept of original sin means the more fallen you are, the less success, joy and peace you will have in life and the less trust and self respect you will experience.

Don't be so quick to agree with an ignorant suggestion given by a missionary of the church of materialism - atheism. Your philosphy as a Christian is not stupid even when you don't understand the meaning and concepts being discussed.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sara123123
Don't be so quick to agree with an ignorant suggestion given by a missionary of the church of materialism - atheism.


WHAT?!?!?

Where the hell did that ignorance come from?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
You say jesus was born with out sin and he is infallible, but you also say, according to the bible, that every man (and woman) is created equally.


Quote?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join