Debunking Original Sin

Originally posted by Joneselius
We've never seen an animal evolve at all, not ever.

We see things 'adapt'. And Darwin later published a work refuting his own claim, you'll have to do better than his earlier research. There's a plethora of scientifically approved rebukes for the theory of evolution. THEORY being the key word of course. THEORY.

What'll you say to God when he asks you what 'evolution' did? You haven't even observed it. We only see adaptation. Which is completely different. And it doesn't surprise me that the Vatican jumps on that bandwagon - they're evil.

The slightest evolutionary change in a species takes millions of years to take place.

Modern humans have only been around for thousands of years. Not millions (not that we know of anyway)
Basically just saying that our known recorded history hasn't even been around long enough to witness evolutionary changes. I thought this was common knowledge but apparently not.

..its most interesting to read "the first and second book of Adam and Eve"

- i know it is dangerous to defend which extra-biblical book are gnostic, and which not ;
but the two books mentioned give a heartbreaking description, of just HOW tough their adaption to this fallen template was

interestingly,
they describe " other humans living in the valley, beyond the Mountain" [ they lived on]
and those who live in that valley are Degenerated templates

..searching to Mix themselves with the, still very present, holyness of the Adamic family
[ even they Fell, it seems that much of their former Glory remained]

now
Magog , the partner in crime of Gog,
means " valley of rooftops"

Gog = satan, who will Fight delirously Him, when He will come back visibly, to claim all that is His '

...and Gog will fight Him together with "magog" ,
that is: the part of mankind, he owns


with other words,
- yes there was a humanoid Template, befóre Adam
...but the original Sin was, that Adam was Tricked into that template

regards,

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by redoubt

 

I don't believe that humanity had a "first blunder" that resulted in some kind of inbred failure that effected all of humanity and separated us from divinity.

I oppose the believe that human's are created with a sinful nature that they need to repent of. I think that people are basically good.

Inbred? No... but even passing observation of all lifeforms finds imperfections in behavior and character. This would, initially, suggest that humans evolved from those that fell from the trees but when we step back, we see that our species has separated itself from the rest of life here on Earth.

People basically good? maybe... but even with evolution, things like greed still prevail.

Is it possible that human beings are (for lack of a better term) spiritual creatures that have been inserted into these physical machines? One step on... our brief time here is about education and growth as we deal with that firmware each of us comes equipped with? And then perhaps somewhere down the line... the scientist... or god (don't shoot me) sent a rep to the surface to not only gain a first hand bit of understanding of what we were going through... but also to suggest a better path... so that these short little lives weren't a waste?

Now, you won't find an iota of science involved but there is some common sense... mostly from that scientist who cut us loose to begin with.

The message is that we are a dynamic species and right now, there are 8+ billion of us, each as unique and individual as our fingerprints. If we all share anything at all, it is those imperfections...

... one of them being that we tend to think that our opinions can replace that old gospel, lol.

In my humble opinion, each life is a day in the nursery. Someday when that door opens, we might get out.

concluding hereby,

that your OP title is most pretentious

if not blatantly Untrue.

kind regards ,

reply to post by Lone12

with other words, - yes there was a humanoid Template, befóre Adam ...but the original Sin was, that Adam was Tricked into that template

Okay. So Adam, having allowed himself to be trick into his incarnate body, committed a sin. But is being born a sin within itself? Did God endow every body with an individual, brand new soul, free of sin, only to be "tricked" into being born in this extant reality? Is every soul guilty of being tricked into existence, and thus in need of salvation?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Lone12

 

with other words, - yes there was a humanoid Template, befóre Adam ...but the original Sin was, that Adam was Tricked into that template

Okay. So Adam, having allowed himself to be trick into his incarnate body committed a sin. But is being born a sin within itself? Did God endow every body with an individual, brand new soul, free of sin, only to be "tricked" into being born in this extant reality? Is every soul guilty of being tricked into existence, and thus in need of salvation?

edit on 5-8-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

Yes.
im sorry it is like that.

..we both know that Social Psychology wants us to think that each newborn person is a Tabula Rasa,
but they dont really comprehend the nature of the Soul and of the "I"

its true - the newborn sóul is "innocent"
and did not deserve all the heavy burdens , past and present, upon her -

...but we all was born being slave of that "I " Awareness
which is destroying, imprisoning our very Essence - our Soul

..Adam had as his "awareness " God Himself
..God was his "I"
...showering him with continuous Love
wisdom
sight

..but you saw, in the Sumerian Tablets,
how the Grigorii - fallen ones - deeply Feared Adam
because of his Being

so they Tricked him [adam] into this lousy physical frame
which is ruled by thém

- yes i agree with you : there [still] ARE bloodlines, which are pre-Adam,
and those indeed have nothing to do with ' original sin'
...since they are Templates, created by evil itself
[ see again the sumerian; how enki wanted to have his creatures more free-willed, cause he was tired of having sex with automats]

regards WW,

I tend to view the story of Adam and Eve metaphorically. Eden and the idea of Adam and Eve "walking with God" is a sort of parable for an age where mankind was in harmony with the natural order of things. The hunter gatherer stage if you will. The fruit from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil is sort of metaphorical (to me) of humanities shift towards civilization. So evolution doesn't really "debunk" original sin, since in that context it was born with the advent of civilization.

It's sort of the idea that people become responsible for their actions once they become cognizant of their implications. For instance, we treat children as being "innocent" because they don't really know any better. But at a certain age, we start to hold them accountable for their actions because they are aware of the difference between right and wrong (the knowledge of good and evil). The same could be said for mankind and its gradual growth towards civilization, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Joneselius
We've never seen an animal evolve at all, not ever.

We see things 'adapt'. And Darwin later published a work refuting his own claim, you'll have to do better than his earlier research. There's a plethora of scientifically approved rebukes for the theory of evolution. THEORY being the key word of course. THEORY.

What'll you say to God when he asks you what 'evolution' did? You haven't even observed it. We only see adaptation. Which is completely different. And it doesn't surprise me that the Vatican jumps on that bandwagon - they're evil.

Ok, first of all, the reason we have never seen an animal evolve is because it's a slow process that takes millions of years. Classic examples of evolution in reality include the giraffes recurrent laryngeal nerve, which starts at the brain and ends at the larynx. Instead of going straight from the brain to the larynx it extends down to the chest, wraps around an artery and goes back up. This, and many more examples like this, are what you would expect from an imperfect process such as evolution, and not the engineering work of an omniscient creator. en.wikipedia.org...
www.youtube.com...

Secondly, when you say Darwin later published a work discrediting his greatest accomplishment, I ask you, when? What was it called? I call your bluff sir, you haven't read any Darwin.

You say there is a plethora of scientific works refuting Evolution, can you provide any links? I have yet to see one peer reviewed scientific analysis from any respected biologist that contradicts Evolution as it is known today.

And "THEORY"?? Really, are we back to this? "It's the THEORY of evolution". Oh, you mean like its the THEORY of Gravity or the THEORY of Electromagnetism. Just to clarify, the definition of theory is
"a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.." dictionary.reference.com...

In laymens terms, we can use a Theory to accurately predict results in reality when applied. In the case of Gravity, we can use that Theory to safely assume that an apple will fall after we toss it in the air. When dealing with a Theory, one can replicate predictable results in two laboratories, miles apart, assuming that the conditions are the same. By your twisted logic, nothing has ever been proven by science, because everything is "just a Theory"

Furthermore, while we may not have observed evolution (as that would require a lifespan of millions of years) we do have a treasure trove of fossil records that seem to follow an evolutionary pattern, and a simple Pre Cambrian rabbit fossil would turn evolution on its head. en.wikipedia.org...
Never mind that we have further proof through our study of the human genome, and the discovery that all humans can be traced back to one ancestral "mother" as well as the genetic traits we have observed in the genomes of our closest relatives.

And, just so we are clear, we have already basically proven evolution (or observed it if you will) on a cellular level.
en.wikipedia.org...

All in all, your overall attitude and display of ignorance on this topic compelled me to respond. With the power of the internet, all information is at your disposal and yet we still come back to these pointless debates when the evidence is literally sitting on your lap.

I thought the Point of this website was to "Deny Ignorance"

Whatever

Peace

reply to post by Lone12

- yes i agree with you : there [still] ARE bloodlines, which are pre-Adam, and those indeed have nothing to do with ' original sin' ...since they are Templates, created by evil itself [ see again the sumerian; how enki wanted to have his creatures more free-willed, cause he was tired of having sex with automats]

So, is it your opinion that all of creation is created by evil, the earth itself, the flora and fauna? What about life on other planets, would that be created by evil as well?

Is it a sin to exist?

Evolution has some explaining to do. When did the brain dead cavemen find the time to build the pyramids, Stonehenge, Baalbek etc? Evolutionist would have us believe ancient man was ape like, and magically got smarter. Why are we observing the opposite? Biological entropy is a fact and it completely flies in the face of Darwinian evolution. But hey, if you determine facts by what the majority believes, you would have fit right in with the nazis, or slave traders of times past.

Originally posted by kingofmd
Evolution has some explaining to do. When did the brain dead cavemen find the time to build the pyramids, Stonehenge, Baalbek etc? Evolutionist would have us believe ancient man was ape like, and magically got smarter. Why are we observing the opposite? Biological entropy is a fact and it completely flies in the face of Darwinian evolution. But hey, if you determine facts by what the majority believes, you would have fit right in with the nazis, or slave traders of times past.

Where to begin? No one in science says our ancestors "were brain dead cavemen." Our ancestors were very intelligent to make great civilizations and what not. We are members of the primate order and related to gorillas, chimpanzees, etc. Therefore we share many similarities with our primate relatives. Over time we did get smarter and discovered and created a lot of things. But science doesn't say we "magically got smarter." Evolution has been observed and tested so many times it is accepted by science.

Also the Nazis and slave traders were more influenced by faith in religion like Christianity. As well "evolutionist" is not a word.

Lol - humans definitely act differently than other animals, in fact, animals tend to be much more ethical, empirical and scientific than us, did you know that?

For example, when hunting, packs of cats will kill off weak herd animals, increasing the health of the herd, and will only capture what they need to eat, for the most part.

You don't see packs of wild cats tossing herd animals into piles and trying to monopolize the meat industry by killing off all of the herds and then sabotaging other wild cat herd stockpiles, etc. in order to gain an edge in the meat trade until they accidentally all run out of food and die.

So basically, I'm not religious, but I actually find a heavy flaw in the argument that humans don't have this "original sin" we totally do.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
I tend to view the story of Adam and Eve metaphorically. Eden and the idea of Adam and Eve "walking with God" is a sort of parable for an age where mankind was in harmony with the natural order of things. The hunter gatherer stage if you will. The fruit from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil is sort of metaphorical (to me) of humanities shift towards civilization. So evolution doesn't really "debunk" original sin, since in that context it was born with the advent of civilization.

It's sort of the idea that people become responsible for their actions once they become cognizant of their implications. For instance, we treat children as being "innocent" because they don't really know any better. But at a certain age, we start to hold them accountable for their actions because they are aware of the difference between right and wrong (the knowledge of good and evil). The same could be said for mankind and its gradual growth towards civilization, in my opinion.

true, DS

but...suppose, the whole story is TRUE
and there was indéed a stunning couple
..how interesting it d be , to reach that again..?

i agree with you, that they had to learn everything again.
But that was not the Goal..?
they knéw everything, already !

...they both had a Sight, which we can only imagine,
and a so gorgious, sexy Being, incomprehensible

- trying to phrase here -
yes i suppose God suspected that they would Fall
but what He did ?
- He connected evil itself with their Fall

meaning,
He set a Trap for evil itself, into human

...since Evil wanted to Rule human so much...right?
well -
evil will HAVE human,
that is, his physical frame,
ultimately in the Adam Kadmon - the Completed Lightworker -
...but that will be evil ' s Downfall.

because yes Evil will have the human template
- but NOT his new Being
..because souls, who trust Him, will get a new stunning Being

..hope that makes sense
regards,

reply to post by kingofmd


How old do you think the pyramids are?

Neanderthals are classified either as a subspecies of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate species of the same genus (Homo neanderthalensis).[4] The first humans with proto-Neanderthal traits are believed to have existed in Europe as early as 600,000–350,000 years ago.
en.wikipedia.org...

Cro-Magnon is a name that has been used to describe the first early modern humans (early Homo sapiens sapiens) of the European Upper Paleolithic.[1] Current scientific literature prefers the term European Early Modern Humans (EEMH), to the term 'Cro-Magnon' which has no formal taxonomic status, as it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture.[1] The earliest known remains of Cro-Magnon-like humans are radiocarbon dated to 43,000 years before present en.wikipedia.org...

Scientific study of human evolution is concerned, primarily, with the development of the genus Homo, but usually involves studying other hominids and hominines as well, such as Australopithecus. "Modern humans" are defined as the Homo sapiens species, of which the only extant subspecies is known as Homo sapiens sapiens. Homo sapiens idaltu (roughly translated as "elder wise human"), the other known subspecies, is now extinct.[1] Homo neanderthalensis, which became extinct 30,000 years ago, has sometimes been classified as a subspecies, "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis"; genetic studies now suggest that the functional DNA of modern humans and Neanderthals diverged 500,000 years ago. en.wikipedia.org...

Which "cave men" do you suspect built the pyramids, Stonehenge, etal?

Uh...

Darwin didn't "invent" or even come up with the theory of evolution. Darwin came up with the theory of natural selection. It was someone else later that used Darwin's theory of natural selection to put the theory of evolution together.

It was actually a French guy named Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis:

But in fact the first view of evolution in a scientific context was devised by Maupertuis, in the context of the Generation Debates that preceded the rise of genetics. Maupertuis noted that polydactyly, in the form of an extra finger on each hand, was passed on from generation to generation in a particular family in a 3:1 ratio, and each parent equally contributed. This, mark you, was 120 years before Mendel.

Link

The more you know!

reply to post by Lone12


Even within the context of a growth towards civilization, Adam and Eve certainly could have been real people. It's possible that what the Bible records is more so an important family, rather than the only family. As someone already pointed out previously, the Bible itself indicates there were people living in Nod during the time of Cain and Abel (indicating that they were not members of Adam's family). That would seem to support the notion that Adam and Eve were not the only two people on earth at the time, but rather the two most important people within the context of the Bible.

It's also possible that what is being chronicled is not only the lives of these individuals, but their lives and legacies. So we could view some of the lore surrounding Adam and Eve as metaphors for a sort of "civilization building family", that descended from two real people. Either way, viewed through this interpretation, "original sin" is far from being debunked, and still fits within the framework of the bible.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


I guess the neext question then would be "Did sin exist in the world outside of Eden before Adam and Eve were cast out of garden, or did they introduce sin the world for the first time?" If so, original sin isn't so original after all.

reply to post by windword


I believe sin existed before Adam & Eve. Lucifer sinned, and so did other angels, before the creation of man.

*To be more specific - Lucifer and his group sinned between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

Original sin isn't a biblical concept. We didn't inherit Adam's sin. What we did inherit is a nature to sin. And we have all done wrong in our lives, wether you have told lies, or stolen, had unmarried sex or committed adultery, or purposely tried to manipulate people, or deceived someone. Mind manipulation is regarded as witchcraft in the scriptures. Not one person in this world has ever not sinned, that is one thing the Hebrew bible establishes for all. You may be good in your own mind, but your mind isn't what counts because you are not your judge.

The concept of original sin (the fall) supposes there was something to fall from.The basic definition of sin is missing or falling short of the mark of perfection....in short.... imperfection..

If something is perfect it can never "fall" to imperfection.That is oxymoronic.The ultimate fact is mankind was born imperfect the proof is everyone who has ever lived died or will die.The scriptures never said mankind(The race of Adam which means Man) was perfect...common sense doesn't say that either.

If original "sin"(imperfection) means we were born imperfect ..it is true.If it means mankind was perfect then performed an act that made them imperfect it is false.Mankind is not sinful because they sin.Mankind sins because they are sinful.It is a state of being that leads to acts..not acts that lead to a state of being.