Without "original sin" all of Christianity collapses

[Quantum Windbag]

If you don't buy the literal idea of a talking snake and a man created out of dust and a woman created out of man's rib, then how can you possibly believe the concept of original sin?

All of Christianity collapses without this biblical myth. Without "original sin", human beings wouldn't be "sinners" in need of "redemption in the form of a "redeemer or savior", Christ. Until Augustine, Christians regarded freedom, not redemption as the primary message of Genesis.

"...I came to see that for nearly the first four hundred years of our era, Christians regarded "FREEDOM as the primary message of Genesis 1-3. Freedom in its many forms, including free will, freedom from demonic powers, freedom from social and sexual obligations, freedom from tyrannical government and from fate; and self mastery as the source of such freedom. With Augustine, this message changed.

(E. Pagels, ADAM, EVE, AND THE SERPENT, intro p.XXII, 1988, Random House)

Without origional sin we would be living in a perfect world not all the different religions one fully united people worshipping the one true God.

Without original sin, we would not have needed a savior. I don't believe in original sin, I have no need of Jesus as savior.

Jesus, as bodhisattva, I respect.

If we didn't need a savior you wouldn't need to listen to one hand clapping.

​

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Christianized interpretation of Genesis 3 is completely backwards, it is the Serpent who is the noble character of the myth, who brings enlightenment to man through a forbidden fruit, and they become as gods.

Knowledge/Gnosis isn't evil, or the downfall of man, more like lack of gnosis is the real problem, but it's hard for the ignorant to see past the box they're in.

Thou has rejected knowledge and thou rejects thee!

I see the ban against knowledge as an effort by priests since pre-antiquity to suppress knowledge and learning by their "flocks" as part of a larger effort to preserve their own special status and keep the marks shrouded in darkness. It's good to be the priest, even some of the ancient warrior kings were able to figure out that if they could convince the masses that only a priest (or priest-king) could act as an intermediary between some divine power, real or imagined, and the population, it would only enhance their power, authority, and control, and forestall the day when people would wise up, and stop sacrificing all their grain and animal sacrifice offerings to the gods, insofar as said grain, meat, and treasure offerings were a major means of sustenance and wealth for the leisurely power-bloated elites and aristocratic ruling classes. Without those food and grain offerings, and the mind lock of fear and ignorance they held over the masses, they would have had to get actual real productive jobs and might likely wind up being run out of town on a rail.

You'd have a good point if you said Christian religions.

Judaic theology on the other hand is pretty transparent.

 

[bodecea]

Why was there a tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden.

Would you leave a loaded gun around little kids with the chance of them playing with it?

In the end, it appears that the all knowing God did not think of the dangers to his wonderful creations. Or want to blame someone else for his mistakes.

Or did it on purpose.


Of course, it's only a metaphor.

 

[logical4u]

The Christianized interpretation of Genesis 3 is completely backwards, it is the Serpent who is the noble character of the myth, who brings enlightenment to man through a forbidden fruit, and they become as gods.

Knowledge/Gnosis isn't evil, or the downfall of man, more like lack of gnosis is the real problem, but it's hard for the ignorant to see past the box they're in.

Thou has rejected knowledge and thou rejects thee!

The "serpent" is cunning/dishonest/deceitful. How is that "noble"?
BTW, that was not what made men "gods"; that would have been the tree of "Life", but they were prevented from doing that.

Before the "serpent", Adam and Eve were innocent, they had no knowledge of "wrong doing". After the fruit, they were aware they were not worthy of the Lord (naked), and hid. The Lord was content to provide for Adam and Eve in a glorious garden, once they were aware they were tended, it was time for them to pull their own weight. They learned to toil and work the soil. They learned to kill for food. They were very conscious of what the 'serpent' cost them in the way of labor and in the relationship they had with the Lord. They told the story so that all their line would know the evil of deception. So heeded the advice, some embraced deception (the whole brother's keeper thing...). We are born to this earth. We have physical needs, wants and desires. The Lord's kingdom does not focus on those things, mainly the spiritual. To be in His Light, is to know ecstacy.

 

[logical4u]

The Christianized interpretation of Genesis 3 is completely backwards, it is the Serpent who is the noble character of the myth, who brings enlightenment to man through a forbidden fruit, and they become as gods.

Knowledge/Gnosis isn't evil, or the downfall of man, more like lack of gnosis is the real problem, but it's hard for the ignorant to see past the box they're in.

Thou has rejected knowledge and thou rejects thee!

I see the ban against knowledge as an effort by priests since pre-antiquity to suppress knowledge and learning by their "flocks" as part of a larger effort to preserve their own special status and keep the marks shrouded in darkness. It's good to be the priest, even some of the ancient warrior kings were able to figure out that if they could convince the masses that only a priest (or priest-king) could act as an intermediary between some divine power, real or imagined, and the population, it would only enhance their power, authority, and control, and forestall the day when people would wise up, and stop sacrificing all their grain and animal sacrifice offerings to the gods, insofar as said grain, meat, and treasure offerings were a major means of sustenance and wealth for the leisurely power-bloated elites and aristocratic ruling classes. Without those food and grain offerings, and the mind lock of fear and ignorance they held over the masses, they would have had to get actual real productive jobs and might likely wind up being run out of town on a rail.

How they've really maintained control then and now though is by forbidding that which can give one their own intermediary power and the divine experience. Thus keeping most people in the dark never realizing their own full potential or having the slightest idea as to who or what they really are. Keeping them trapped in the hell of the material world only to realize the real truth upon their death beds. Kind of similar to the Matrix.

Today, that is pure "choice". There is no reason to "stay in the dark". You can learn to read. You can buy your own Bible. You can do your own research. The only control the "church" has is what "you" give them.

Today, it is the gov't that is controlling 'authority'. Children are indoctrinated in gov't schools to what a predominately liberal authority wants taught. In many cases, history is not taught well, or revised to fit the agenda (I know children that were in school when Clinton was impeached, but were never taught that he was impeached or that he committed purgory in a court of law). What is sad is that so many are so thouroughly brain-washed they have no desire to learn on their own. They repeat what they are taught in school and what is on the news shows their teachers told them they should watch. They are encouraged to be deceitful and slovenly so the gov't (the new church) will tend them (the flock).

Also, people support churches to keep the traditions of Christianity alive. The gov't knows if they break the churches, they will be able to turn people into "believers" (of the gov't). The Christian churches are islands of knowledge (not all the members), where love, care, and charity are practiced more generously than any other faith in the entire world. That comes from having a Savior that was born as one of us (human), that knew the pain we had, that knew the temptations we face, and still loved us enough to show us the way to eternal life, and to give us the gifts to get there. We all have a choice. You can choose to move toward Truth and Light, or you can choose the other direction (that would be AWAY from Truth and Light). It is a choice that each of us must make in our own heart.

 

[Swingline50022]

The Christianized interpretation of Genesis 3 is completely backwards, it is the Serpent who is the noble character of the myth, who brings enlightenment to man through a forbidden fruit, and they become as gods.

Knowledge/Gnosis isn't evil, or the downfall of man, more like lack of gnosis is the real problem, but it's hard for the ignorant to see past the box they're in.

Thou has rejected knowledge and thou rejects thee!

I see the ban against knowledge as an effort by priests since pre-antiquity to suppress knowledge and learning by their "flocks" as part of a larger effort to preserve their own special status and keep the marks shrouded in darkness. It's good to be the priest, even some of the ancient warrior kings were able to figure out that if they could convince the masses that only a priest (or priest-king) could act as an intermediary between some divine power, real or imagined, and the population, it would only enhance their power, authority, and control, and forestall the day when people would wise up, and stop sacrificing all their grain and animal sacrifice offerings to the gods, insofar as said grain, meat, and treasure offerings were a major means of sustenance and wealth for the leisurely power-bloated elites and aristocratic ruling classes. Without those food and grain offerings, and the mind lock of fear and ignorance they held over the masses, they would have had to get actual real productive jobs and might likely wind up being run out of town on a rail.

You'd have a good point if you said Christian religions.

Judaic theology on the other hand is pretty transparent.

I'm not sure what you mean by transparent. Looking at it from the perspective of comparative religion, most of the early religions were based on animal and grain sacrifices. Look at the story of Abraham sacrificing a son, the books of Moses which are more or less shared by Jews and Christians were full of rules and rituals about how to conduct animal and grain sacrifices, shares of which were collected by the temple priests and used for the priests' subsistence and as long term provisions for the temple. It's no different in that respect than the early practice of most other patriarchical religions, ever since at least when the Sumerians went from a matriarchal hunter & gatherer culture to patriarchal agrarianism sometime during or before the 4th Millennium BC. I have no particular bias for or against either Judaism or Christianity and would not wish to foment further disagreements between the groups.