Was Original Sin caused by Adam and Eve?

[rwederfoort]

If the concept of Original Sin was caused by Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge as the Bible claims, then the punishment for Original Sin is absurd. This is so because it applies Original Sin to each consciousness, when the consciousness has not yet done anything to deserve such a stain. This was explained away by the Church as collectively-inherited sin, just as it would later erroneously argue a case for collectively-inherited sin on the principle of Vicarious Satisfaction stemming from the murder of Jesus. Why would God stain His perfect creation just for one error supposedly committed by Adam? It is most unfair to blame everybody for the error of Adam.

The concept of Original Sin also implies that God would create each new being perfectly, and then spoil each being with the taint of evil because of the error of Adam. Such a concept denies the essence of evil outside of man. It also implies that all humans are born with sin and all humans are born with Original Sin. Such a concept makes humans despair of perfection, for they can never eradicate their inborn fault. It also implies that non-Christians are doomed to end up in hell, as salvation, according to the Church, can only be attained through Jesus Christ the redeemer. But, Jesus stands for all consciousnesses of the True Light, regardless of their forms (mineral, vegetable, animal, human, galactic etc.).

One may argue that the incoherence lies only in combining the idea of sin as a separation from God with the idea of sin as wrongdoing. But surely Original Sin is not our wrongdoing. Besides, why should anyone be concerned with imperfection when God gives us what we cannot achieve for ourselves?

By asserting the existence of Original Sin, are we blaming Adam or Satan as the creator of all humans who were born? If the Christian belief in baptism encompasses the belief that all sins are forgiven at the point of baptism, then the Church actually denies its own doctrine when it denies that all sins are forgiven in baptism, because the implication of Original Sin remains in baptized parents. There is an implication that even baptized parents pass on the evil of Original Sin to their children. This not only implies that God is imperfect, it also suggests that God continuously creates imperfection since all human beings have to pay for Adam's sin. In this light, the defence of Original Sin is unjust and weak.

But, Original Sin is not what was recorded in the Bible. In fact, the story of Adam and Eve is not even about human history.

Namaste

[michael christopher]

Original sin is where we have to clean up the messes made by our ancestors, be they physical or psychological messes.

[miracles]

If the concept of Original Sin was caused by Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge as the Bible claims, then the punishment for Original Sin is absurd. This is so because it applies Original Sin to each consciousness, when the consciousness has not yet done anything to deserve such a stain. This was explained away by the Church as collectively-inherited sin, just as it would later erroneously argue a case for collectively-inherited sin on the principle of Vicarious Satisfaction stemming from the murder of Jesus. Why would God stain His perfect creation just for one error supposedly committed by Adam? It is most unfair to blame everybody for the error of Adam.

The concept of Original Sin also implies that God would create each new being perfectly, and then spoil each being with the taint of evil because of the error of Adam. Such a concept denies the essence of evil outside of man. It also implies that all humans are born with sin and all humans are born with Original Sin. Such a concept makes humans despair of perfection, for they can never eradicate their inborn fault. It also implies that non-Christians are doomed to end up in hell, as salvation, according to the Church, can only be attained through Jesus Christ the redeemer. But, Jesus stands for all consciousnesses of the True Light, regardless of their forms (mineral, vegetable, animal, human, galactic etc.).

One may argue that the incoherence lies only in combining the idea of sin as a separation from God with the idea of sin as wrongdoing. But surely Original Sin is not our wrongdoing. Besides, why should anyone be concerned with imperfection when God gives us what we cannot achieve for ourselves?

By asserting the existence of Original Sin, are we blaming Adam or Satan as the creator of all humans who were born? If the Christian belief in baptism encompasses the belief that all sins are forgiven at the point of baptism, then the Church actually denies its own doctrine when it denies that all sins are forgiven in baptism, because the implication of Original Sin remains in baptized parents. There is an implication that even baptized parents pass on the evil of Original Sin to their children. This not only implies that God is imperfect, it also suggests that God continuously creates imperfection since all human beings have to pay for Adam's sin. In this light, the defence of Original Sin is unjust and weak.

But, Original Sin is not what was recorded in the Bible. In fact, the story of Adam and Eve is not even about human history.

Namaste
WHich church teaches that all sins are forgiven in baptism, I think thats hindusim in the river ganges or something, otherwise I havent heard of it?

Mincepaste

PS Original sin defended biblically here
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/classics/jonathanedwards/original_sin.shtml

[danceswithbunnies]

Interestingly, in some of the Advaita there is the concept that children are born with oceanic awarness...there is no Me and You..there is no concept of self at that age..there is just awareness.

(i am going by a book i read Sudden Awakening written by Eli Jaxon Bear which was informative)

Sometime around two years old (i might have to dig out the book and check it) a primal wound happens and it can be emotional, physical, or intellectual that causes the child to begin to have a self concept...it is the splitting of the world, and the child's ego forms around this wound..

Now drawing from that information it would make sense that this primal wound that splits the world and which the ego crystallizes around could be "the original sin"..

[stfd]

If the concept of Original Sin was caused by Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge as the Bible claims, then the punishment for Original Sin is absurd. This is so because it applies Original Sin to each consciousness, when the consciousness has not yet done anything to deserve such a stain. This was explained away by the Church as collectively-inherited sin, just as it would later erroneously argue a case for collectively-inherited sin on the principle of Vicarious Satisfaction stemming from the murder of Jesus. Why would God stain His perfect creation just for one error supposedly committed by Adam? It is most unfair to blame everybody for the error of Adam.

The concept of Original Sin also implies that God would create each new being perfectly, and then spoil each being with the taint of evil because of the error of Adam. Such a concept denies the essence of evil outside of man. It also implies that all humans are born with sin and all humans are born with Original Sin. Such a concept makes humans despair of perfection, for they can never eradicate their inborn fault. It also implies that non-Christians are doomed to end up in hell, as salvation, according to the Church, can only be attained through Jesus Christ the redeemer. But, Jesus stands for all consciousnesses of the True Light, regardless of their forms (mineral, vegetable, animal, human, galactic etc.).

One may argue that the incoherence lies only in combining the idea of sin as a separation from God with the idea of sin as wrongdoing. But surely Original Sin is not our wrongdoing. Besides, why should anyone be concerned with imperfection when God gives us what we cannot achieve for ourselves?

By asserting the existence of Original Sin, are we blaming Adam or Satan as the creator of all humans who were born? If the Christian belief in baptism encompasses the belief that all sins are forgiven at the point of baptism, then the Church actually denies its own doctrine when it denies that all sins are forgiven in baptism, because the implication of Original Sin remains in baptized parents. There is an implication that even baptized parents pass on the evil of Original Sin to their children. This not only implies that God is imperfect, it also suggests that God continuously creates imperfection since all human beings have to pay for Adam's sin. In this light, the defence of Original Sin is unjust and weak.

But, Original Sin is not what was recorded in the Bible. In fact, the story of Adam and Eve is not even about human history.

Namaste

Yes it was.

[decode reality]

Greetings, just found this post.

For me, the Adam and Eve story falls down on one basic point: snakes don't speak.

It must be a symbolic story but many people suncosciously or even consciously believe that there was a time when snakes used to speak.

Right there and then, it shows how people will bypass their common sense when they adopt particular ideas in religion.

I'm sorry if this annoys any believers but I'm only speaking reality.

Like Stevie Wonder says in Superstition "If you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer....superstition ain't the way" ;)

[metacomet]

For me, the Adam and Eve story falls down on one basic point: snakes don't speak.

It must be a symbolic story but many people suncosciously or even consciously believe that there was a time when snakes used to speak.

Right there and then, it shows how people will bypass their common sense when they adopt particular ideas in religion.


Right, but,

and this is to everyone who reads this thread:

to take things said in the Bible literally is retarded. Hence the droves of semi-retarded religious people.

Symbolically, the snake represents the reptilian, whose mind we have genetically inherited and is scientifically accepted as holding our centers for anger, greed, lust, etc.

The inheritance of our reptilian mind and the r-cortex is represented as the acceptance of the snakes 'forbidden fruit' which represents corrupted consciousness and acceptance of the ego. The ego is the vehicle through which Adam and Eve recognized their own physical bodies and discovered themselves to be 'naked' - it was through clothing themself in shame that 'God' recognized Adam and Eve to have eaten the forbidden fruit - for it signaled that their consciousness had become tainted with ego, they had accepted the offer of the 'snake' to live a carnal and physical life.

This is all very serious and deep subject matter but because it is in the book of the Bible and people are materialists who take everything literally - we have to have these discussions on what Adam and Eve is really about.

[tenzingnorgay]

Right, but,

and this is to everyone who reads this thread:

to take things said in the Bible literally is retarded. Hence the droves of semi-retarded religious people.

Symbolically, the snake represents the reptilian, whose mind we have genetically inherited and is scientifically accepted as holding our centers for anger, greed, lust, etc.

The inheritance of our reptilian mind and the r-cortex is represented as the acceptance of the snakes 'forbidden fruit' which represents corrupted consciousness and acceptance of the ego. The ego is the vehicle through which Adam and Eve recognized their own physical bodies and discovered themselves to be 'naked' - it was through clothing themself in shame that 'God' recognized Adam and Eve to have eaten the forbidden fruit - for it signaled that their consciousness had become tainted with ego, they had accepted the offer of the 'snake' to live a carnal and physical life.

This is all very serious and deep subject matter but because it is in the book of the Bible and people are materialists who take everything literally - we have to have these discussions on what Adam and Eve is really about.

Not a bad analysis but the snake is Enki.

[kappy0405]

Essentially, the concept of original sin is the one dividing factor between Christianity and Islam. What a shame..

Anyway,
Greetings, just found this post.

For me, the Adam and Eve story falls down on one basic point: snakes don't speak.


The psuedo-Jewish 'Haggadah' implies that the snake of eden was a humanoid reptile. Just a thought.

"Among the animals, the serpent [in Eden] was notable. Of all of them, he had the most excellent qualities, in some of which he resembled man. Like man, he stood upright on two feet, and in height, he was equal to the camel. ... His superior mental gifts caused him to become an infidel"

Surely, a humanoid with superior mental gifts capable of contemplating the existence of God would also be capable of speaking..

[metacomet]

Ah, another theory I have just broached with a friend and would like to share -

The forbidden fruit and the tree on which it originates are possibly allegories for other things as well.

The tree of life and other spiritual trees are mentioned as well, but what exactly is the tree of the forbidden fruit?

The tree of life as viewed in out of body or spiritual experiences is glittering in ways that are indescribable. This coincides with seeing other dimensional objects, beings, places, etc. which shimmer and are of shapes and colors that are indescribable in this reality.

The tree which bears the forbidden fruit could be an allegory for another dimension... and the forbidden fruit may be this planet or our form of consciousness. The story of Adam and Eve may be an allegory for mankinds descent into this dimension and reality...

[decode reality]

Right, but,

and this is to everyone who reads this thread:

to take things said in the Bible literally is retarded. Hence the droves of semi-retarded religious people.

Symbolically, the snake represents the reptilian, whose mind we have genetically inherited and is scientifically accepted as holding our centers for anger, greed, lust, etc.

The inheritance of our reptilian mind and the r-cortex is represented as the acceptance of the snakes 'forbidden fruit' which represents corrupted consciousness and acceptance of the ego. The ego is the vehicle through which Adam and Eve recognized their own physical bodies and discovered themselves to be 'naked' - it was through clothing themself in shame that 'God' recognized Adam and Eve to have eaten the forbidden fruit - for it signaled that their consciousness had become tainted with ego, they had accepted the offer of the 'snake' to live a carnal and physical life.

This is all very serious and deep subject matter but because it is in the book of the Bible and people are materialists who take everything literally - we have to have these discussions on what Adam and Eve is really about.

Yes, I agree with this analysis. It's akin to a similar breakdown that I'd encountered in a book called Metu Neter by Ra Un Nefer Amen.

[decode reality]

Ah, another theory I have just broached with a friend and would like to share -

The forbidden fruit and the tree on which it originates are possibly allegories for other things as well.

The tree of life and other spiritual trees are mentioned as well, but what exactly is the tree of the forbidden fruit?

The tree of life as viewed in out of body or spiritual experiences is glittering in ways that are indescribable. This coincides with seeing other dimensional objects, beings, places, etc. which shimmer and are of shapes and colors that are indescribable in this reality.

The tree which bears the forbidden fruit could be an allegory for another dimension... and the forbidden fruit may be this planet or our form of consciousness. The story of Adam and Eve may be an allegory for mankinds descent into this dimension and reality...

I think the fall of mankind is something similar to the concept of yugas in the Hindu tradition, the present one being the Kali yuga (which goes back many millenia).

I've also seen it speculated that the Tree Of Life is the kabbalah. I'll just throw that in as a quick comment.

[biblegirl]

"Among the animals, the serpent was notable. Of all of them, he had the most excellent qualities, in some of which he resembled man. Like man, he stood upright on two feet, and in height, he was equal to the camel. ... His superior mental gifts caused him to become an infidel"


that's extremely interesting

Genesis says the serpent "was more subtile than any beast of the field that the Lord had made" so already it sets apart the serpent from the animals

[grenadene]

By gum there's a lot of scope for control within this concept of original sin, which leads me to consider the human intervention in these passages from the Bible. Although I consider myself to be a very spiritual person my moral compass is not twitching in support of this deity so far.

If I had just read the Genesis chapter for the first time I would assume it plotted the adventures of an ethereal 'emo' teenager with a chemistry set and a very unbalanced character.

Taking the words verbatim it sounds like human beings were created as objects of amusement to unquestioningly worship their creator. On creation they were turned out into an environment of huge spiritual peril - complete with talking snakes. This is certainly not how I have brought up my own children.

The concept of original sin is in my opinion a MAN-MADE theory of why we are physically and spiritually less than perfect. The serpent reference is probably to discredit the pagan knowledge and in particular female wisdom - lets get rid of these evil, dancing herbalists who can levitate large stones!

[metacomet]

that's extremely interesting

Genesis says the serpent "was more subtile than any beast of the field that the Lord had made" so already it sets apart the serpent from the animals

Hmm describing it as subtle makes me think of subtle energies, and the astral or ethereal realms are described as the subtle dimensions...


The concept of original sin is in my opinion a MAN-MADE theory of why we are physically and spiritually less than perfect.

Yes, but in comparison to our higher dimensional selves, who were once situated in the 'garden of eden' - we are spiritually and physically less than perfect.

The simple act of being born into this reality denotes that we have been clothed in physicality... we have fallen from the higher. To be a spirit in physical form could certainly be considered 'sinful' in that it is a blemish to our spirit! But that requires a kinder definition of 'sin' ... one wherein a person may sin without consciously doing wrong.

[rhydra]

The apple signified the knowledge and the ability to know the different between good and evil, different from the other animals.

With this knowledge the humans were deemed to be on the level of gods. The fear of those who created the Bible is that those who are part of the religion may acquire knowledge other than that which is given to them by the elite, by the priests.

If someone finds out something that is contrary to the knowledge of the Bible it must have come from a serpent, a demon, the devil himself, things like free thought are heresy, rational facts being the work of Satan to test faith.

The bliss of Adam and Eve before the incident with the apple is the part of the promise of innocence and bliss one achieves after a lifetime of compliance in the flock.

[metacomet]

The apple signified the knowledge and the ability to know the different between good and evil, different from the other animals.

Ah yes,

but could it be that knowledge of good and evil is synonymous with existing in this dimension? Animals do understand the concept of good and bad... they understand the concept of pain and pleasure, fear and happiness... certainly they are vulnerable to duality just as much as us.

In the garden of eden, or higher reality, from which we came - there was only goodness... everything was perfect and whole.

To experience separation, darkness, or 'badness' we have to split apart from the perfect unity and Adam and Eve may represent humanities decision to enter the lower dimension where separation and darkness can be experienced.


The bliss of Adam and Eve before the incident with the apple is the part of the promise of innocence and bliss one achieves after a lifetime of compliance in the flock.

I really doubt that.

Adam and Eve were blissful because they were living in a higher dimension, no pain, no physical entrapment, no separation from the great spirit.

Promises of reaching 'heaven' in Christianity are actually encouragement for us to cleanse our souls in order to gain entry to the higher dimensions from which we came.

[grenadene]

I think that spiritual mechanics are far more simple than the writers of the Bible would have us believe, which forces me to consider why anyone would want us to believe that we were born sinners.

Doesn't the notion of being 'born a sinner' push us straight into the hands of the religious establishment, as well as give us all kinds of neuroses that prevents us from realising our full potential. I would say that concept of original sin is very damaging to humanity and makes a good cash-cow for the Abrahamic religions.

This is probably why I resonate more with the science and sentiments of Buddhism or Hinduism :)

[sofa king]

Greetings, just found this post.

For me, the Adam and Eve story falls down on one basic point: snakes don't speak.

)



to me it falls down because Adam and Eve take the fall.

the reality is, that given the nature of the personalities of Adam and Eve, at some point, they would have fallen prey to the convincing sales pitch of the snake.

It was going to happen regardless as both wwere made gullible enough.

Therefore God's error in not giving the first humans the power of cynicism.

[trappedinameatsuit]

I don't believe in original sin. I go by the Enki belief rather than "satan".