What the ORIGINAL SIN really is. And why Christians are guilty of it

[Avoice]

The church claims man has been infected with the "original sin." Its defined by the church as being unable to please God. That we are all doomed. And only killing a good guy named Jesus can save us.
No one is infected with anything. Its just a cop out. An excuse to failure.
Do you think such a concept insoires people to try harder or an excuse

[bluegreenearth]

Yes that's true. But it was Adam's responsibility as the head to keep his family in order. He could have reprimanded Eve, letting her know that what she did was unacceptable, but he didn't.

In the post-fall narrative, I agree that the text identifies Adam as ruling over Eve. However, where in the pre-fall narrative does the text state or imply that Eve was initially intended to be subordinate to Adam rather than his equal? The text does identify Eve as Adam's helper, but this doesn't necessarily imply that she was serving in a subordinate role. There are many partnerships where the person serving in the helper role could possibly have an equal or even greater ranking.

In any case, it doesn't logically follow that Adam would have recognized or understood the need to reprimand Eve because he hadn't yet acquired the knowledge of good and evil to distinguish her action as unacceptable in terms of good and evil.

[JehovahsWitness]

WAS SIN FREE CHILDBIRTH EVER PURPOSED TO BE COMPLETELY PAIN FREE ?

Some conclude physical pain is always a symptom of sin or evil, but is this a reasonable position?

Pain is the natural response of the body to over stimulus or danger. It is a natural part of the bodies central nervous system'which allows us to feel pleasure as well as react appropriately to anything that would harm the body. For example, if someone is near a fire, the sensation of pain signals the brain to pull back and avoid burning the skin. Indeed a lack of ability to feel pain , called congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP) is a neurological disorder and a sign that the body is NOT functioning correctly.

Pain is a signal that the body is in a position or circumstances where conscious or inconscious action is required. For example pain signals to somone their hand is in fire and they must immediately pull it away.

So it is reasonable to include that Adam and Eve originally had perfect bodies with fully fonctioning nervous systems and that their perfect bodies were designed to signal pain in certain circumstances.


WAS CHILDBIRTH PURPOSED TO BE PAINFUL?

Childbirth is when a baby passes outside of its mother's body through her birth canal. The mother must help her baby by bearing down on the muscles around her cervix . Contractions signal to a mother that her body is ready to expulse her baby from her body and as the sensations become increasingly strong/ painful, she natural has the urge up bear down in childbirth. Without contractions the baby of itself would not have the force to leave her body or alternativey if her cervix dialated without any signal to the mother the child (fully develpped or not) would risk harm falling out of the mothers body, without warning.



WAS NATURAL CHILDBIRTH PURPOSE TO BE AS PAINFUL AS IT IS TODAY?

It seems reasonable then to conclude that a degree of pain/ discomfort was originally part of the natural process of childbirth to signal that to the mother that her baby needs help to leave her body. However we note that God told Eve that as a result of her rebellion her childbirth pains would be "greatly increase[d]" . Thus we can conclude that in a perfect state Eve would naturally have felt some pain , but certainly nothing like the agony of natural childbirth that women have experienced through the ages.





JEHOVAH'S WITNESS



RELATED POSTS

Why does the bible say God "caused"/made Eve's childbirth pains?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 58#p801758

When does human life begin?
viewtopic.php?p=904476#p904476

How does God view the life of an unborn child?
viewtopic.php?p=1080910#p1080910

?p=1022425#p1022425

[onewithhim]

Yes that's true. But it was Adam's responsibility as the head to keep his family in order. He could have reprimanded Eve, letting her know that what she did was unacceptable, but he didn't.

In the post-fall narrative, I agree that the text identifies Adam as ruling over Eve. However, where in the pre-fall narrative does the text state or imply that Eve was initially intended to be subordinate to Adam rather than his equal? The text does identify Eve as Adam's helper, but this doesn't necessarily imply that she was serving in a subordinate role. There are many partnerships where the person serving in the helper role could possibly have an equal or even greater ranking.

In any case, it doesn't logically follow that Adam would have recognized or understood the need to reprimand Eve because he hadn't yet acquired the knowledge of good and evil to distinguish her action as unacceptable in terms of good and evil.

Adam knew exactly what he was doing. That's why he was held accountable. If he didn't know his bum from his elbow Jehovah wouldn't have judged him adversely.

Eve wasn't Adam's "subordinate." She was equal to him but would give up the final decision on matters to Adam. Someone had to have the last word. Jehovah assigned that to Adam, since he was made first.

[bluegreenearth]

Adam knew exactly what he was doing. That's why he was held accountable. If he didn't know his bum from his elbow Jehovah wouldn't have judged him adversely.

Then Adam had the knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the forbidden fruit?

Eve wasn't Adam's "subordinate." She was equal to him but would give up the final decision on matters to Adam. Someone had to have the last word. Jehovah assigned that to Adam, since he was made first.

Why did someone need to have the last word? Where in the pre-fall narrative was Adam assigned with having the last word?

[JehovahsWitness]

Why did someone need to have the last word? Where in the pre-fall narrative was Adam assigned with having the last word?

All social structures require leadership and the family unit is no exception. Adam was appointed the head of the family and Eve was created to assist Adam not to lead or direct him.

GENESIS 2:18

Then Jehovah God said: “It is not good for the man to continue to be alone. I am going to make a helper for him, as a complement of him.”

RELATED POSTS

Was Adam present when Eve ate of the fruit?
viewtopic.php?p=1029137#p1029137

Did Adam blame Eve for his sin?
viewtopic.php?p=1065330#p1065330

Adam's sin had what effect on his children?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 60#p909860

For more details please go to other posts related to...

THE GARDEN OF EDEN , ADAM and ... THE DECEPTION OF EVE

This understanding was later confirmed in the Christian scripture ...

1 CORINTHIANS 11:9

And what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man.

[bluegreenearth]

All social structures require leadership and the family unit is no exception. Adam was appointed the head of the family and Eve was created to assist Adam not to lead or direct him.

GENESIS 2:18

Then Jehovah God said: “It is not good for the man to continue to be alone. I am going to make a helper for him, as a complement of him.”+

The text does identify Eve as Adam's helper, but this doesn't necessarily imply that she was serving in a subordinate role. There are many partnerships where the person serving in the helper role could possibly have an equal or even greater ranking. Not all social structures require a single leader, and pre-fall, the text indicates that there were only two humans in the garden. Two humans make a partnership that doesn't require a single leader. The text also doesn't have the god appoint Adam to the head of the family until after the fall.

This understanding was later confirmed in the Christian scripture ...

1 CORINTHIANS 11:9

And what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man.

The content in 1 Corinthians 11:9 was written by someone who was making one interpretation of the content in the book of Genesis. Where is the argument for that interpretation?

[JehovahsWitness]

1 CORINTHIANS 11:9

And what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man.

The content in 1 Corinthians 11:9 was written by someone who was making one interpretation of the content in the book of Genesis. Where is the argument for that interpretation?

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I take a wholistic approach to scripture which allows using various parts of the bible canon to clarify other books and passages. We always adopt the understanding that harmonises rather than conflicts with the bible as a whole since we believe God (JEHOVAH) to be the author of all 66 books and the various writers merely human "secretaries" writing under divine direction (compare 2 Peter 1:21)





JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[onewithhim]

Adam knew exactly what he was doing. That's why he was held accountable. If he didn't know his bum from his elbow Jehovah wouldn't have judged him adversely.

Then Adam had the knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the forbidden fruit?

Yes he did. The tree didn't hold mysteries for the first humans. The tree signified their love for God and their obedience to Him. They had the chance to show their faithfulness by obeying and not taking the fruit from that one tree. But Adam wanted to run his own show, without having to bend the knee to Jehovah.....to make up his own mind as to what was good and evil.

[onewithhim]

Adam knew exactly what he was doing. That's why he was held accountable. If he didn't know his bum from his elbow Jehovah wouldn't have judged him adversely.

Then Adam had the knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the forbidden fruit?

Eve wasn't Adam's "subordinate." She was equal to him but would give up the final decision on matters to Adam. Someone had to have the last word. Jehovah assigned that to Adam, since he was made first.

Why did someone need to have the last word? Where in the pre-fall narrative was Adam assigned with having the last word?

SOMEONE has to make the final decision as to what to do, after having discussed it with the wife and considering her thoughts. The wife could surely do it, but God assigned the man to be the head of the family. "I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of the woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3) Paul was inspired by the never-changing God to write that, so I would think that that was the arrangement from the beginning.

[bluegreenearth]

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I take a wholistic approach to scripture which allows using various parts of the bible canon to clarify other books and passages. We always adopt the understanding that harmonises rather than conflicts with the bible as a whole since we believe God (JEHOVAH) to be the author of all 66 books and the various writers merely human "secretaries" writing under divine direction (compare 2 Peter 1:21)

Intellectual honesty compels me to reject that approach on account of the all the unsupported assumptions it entails, but you are free to make all the unsupported assumptions you feel is necessary to support your belief. Thanks for contributing to the viewpoint diversity on this topic.