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]

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.

You are welcome to whatever interpretation that best aligns with your belief, but a literal interpretation doesn't provide sufficient evidence to justify those claims. Therefore, I'm bound by intellectual honesty to reject your claims. Nevertheless, thanks for contributing to the viewpoint diversity surrounding this topic.

[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?

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.

See post #16 followed by post #20.

[JehovahsWitness]

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 ...

I'm sure you are not implying that their is anything intellectually dishonest to conclude an omnipotent God can control the production of a book, but I recognise that atheism compels the knee jerk rejection of such an idea. That said, there is no excuse for the selective vision required to ignore the implications as to the internal harmony of the bible canon, but your feelings and beliefs in this regard have been duly noted.

No disrespect to your worldwide was intended, I know how sensitive people can be when their position is challenged. Be well,


JW

[bluegreenearth]

I'm sure you are not implying that their is anything intellectually dishonest to conclude an omnipotent God can control the production of a book, but I recognise that atheism compels the knee jerk rejection of such an idea. That said, there is no excuse for the selective vision required to ignore the implications as to the internal harmony of the bible canon, but your feelings and beliefs in this regard have been duly noted.

No disrespect to your worldwide was intended, I know how sensitive people can be when their position is challenged. Be well,

I was not making that implication. Sure, it is possible for an omnipotent god to control the production of a book, but I'm bound by intellectual honesty to acknowledge when there is insufficient evidence to justify positive belief over agnosticism with regards to such an extraordinary claim. This includes the claim that the Bible canon is internally harmonious. The truth of that claim is dependent upon highly subjective hermeneutics. Therefore, I'm bound by intellectual honesty to remain agnostic on that claim as well.

For the record, I never take offense to having my position challenged. In fact, I welcome all such challenges as it is always best to be open to the possibly of being mistaken rather than stubbornly retain a nonnegotiable confidence in my position. Otherwise, I would never discover where I was wrong about something. As to the content of my posts in this thread, I remain open to the possibility of being mistaken but haven't yet been provided with sufficient disconfirming evidence.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

If someone is helping/ assisting or supporting someone, they are by definition not the driving force in the task. For example A co-pilote may play a vital role is a in an airline flight but his role is secondary to the pilot. The bible doesnt specifically use the word "subordinate" but Adam's authority is implied in the Genesis account.

God refers to Adam as Eve's "husband" a word which today has lost much of its original meaning but even in English its roots come from Master /manager of a household. Hebrew terms variously used with reference to a husband are ʼa·dhohnʹ (lord), baʹʽal (owner; master), and reʹaʽ (companion; friend). (Ge 18:12; 20:3; Jer 3:20). So the use of the term husband is not without significance in the Genesis account reflecting Adam's position and authority.

Further, we have no record of God repeating the divine mandate not to eat from the tree of knowledge and it is not unreasonable to believe it was Adam who relayed the divine mandate to Eve exercising a degree of authority in the capacity of instructor . Whether or not that was the case , it would be in contrats to all anthropological observation to conclude that Adam's greater age, and experience and unique position as the first human created was irrelevant in the balance of power in the first family.

Finally we note that it was Adam that is reported to have named his wife and that when God addressed humanity's condemnation to (adamic) death it was as part of his judgement of Adam rather than to Eve implying Adam was ultimately responsible for the lot of his unborn children rather than Eve.

The bible is clear that the man is head of the family by divine mandate according to the pattern set in the garden of Eden; a pattern which was essentially a patriarchal hierarchy.

[JehovahsWitness]

...it is possible for an omnipotent god to control the production of a book, but I'm bound by intellectual honesty to acknowledge when there is insufficient evidence to justify positive belief over agnosticism with regards to such an extraordinary claim.

Unless you claim omniscience you cannot know there is "there is insufficient evidence to justify positive belief" all you can say is you personally believe there is "insufficient evidence....".

And like I said, I respect your beliefs but do not share them.


JW

[bluegreenearth]

...it is possible for an omnipotent god to control the production of a book, but I'm bound by intellectual honesty to acknowledge when there is insufficient evidence to justify positive belief over agnosticism with regards to such an extraordinary claim.

Unless you claim omniscience you cannot know there is "there is insufficient evidence to justify positive belief" all you can say is you personally believe there is "insufficient evidence....".

And like I said, I respect your beliefs but do not share them.

I did not intend that implication. When I state there is insufficient evidence to justify positive belief over agnosticism, I'm referring to me. I cannot control how much or little evidence will convince me to hold a belief about a claim. I cannot choose to believe a claim when I'm not convinced by the evidence to believe it. To claim to have such a belief would be intellectually dishonest on my part.

[boatsnguitars]

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.”+[/color]

Why did you cherry pick the part you want, and not quote the entire passage? Are you God's editor?

Genesis 2:18, 20-24 (NIV):
"The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him'... But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."

The text does identify Eve as Adam's helper, but this doesn't necessarily imply that she was serving in a subordinate role.

Genesis 3:16 (NIV):
"To the woman he said, 'I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor, you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.'"

Also, shows how ancient man tried to explain the pains of childbirth... And, why men have one less rib as Theists have believed for some 6000 years...

[onewithhim]

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.”+[/color]

Why did you cherry pick the part you want, and not quote the entire passage? Are you God's editor?

Genesis 2:18, 20-24 (NIV):
"The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him'... But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."

The text does identify Eve as Adam's helper, but this doesn't necessarily imply that she was serving in a subordinate role.

Genesis 3:16 (NIV):
"To the woman he said, 'I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor, you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.'"

Also, shows how ancient man tried to explain the pains of childbirth... And, why men have one less rib as Theists have believed for some 6000 years...

Men have one less rib?? News to me. Anyway, the husband ruling over his wife could be said to be the consequence of Eve's betrayal of God. In the new system of things no one will "rule" over anyone else. But it also gives a hint of the headship principle, formed at the beginning. (I Corinthians 11:3) The man is given the responsibility of caring for and protecting his family, and the wife is his supporter and helper.

[Mae von H]

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

An excuse for sure. I’ve even experienced christians who wronged someone saying, “It wasn’t me. It was my sin nature.” No asking forgiveness (why ask forgiveness for a nature you were born with?)