Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Was Adam’s first sin that of not reproducing?
Gen 1; 28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
Strangely woman disappears. Then Gen 2; 18 And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'
Gen 4; 1 And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said: 'I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis indicates that Adam was not very bright. It also indicates that he somehow did not have the instincts we all have including the desire to reproduce. At least not until he ate of the tree of knowledge.
Strange to think that without breaking God’s command not to eat of the tree of knowledge, Adam would have never reproduced and none of us would be here to thank any God for creating us.
As you can see from the Eden time-line, Adam had a lot of time to know Eve, ------- yet did not do as commanded in Gen 1. In fact he waited until Gen 4.
If you, if you are a man, were told to reproduce, can you see yourself sitting there naming animals instead of enjoying sex? Do not lie. You know you would have jumped Eve in the wink of an eye. Unless you are gay that is.
Now I know that Christians have some strange notions about not having sex at certain times but the case above shows that Adam refused or was not mature enough to do God’s command. I cannot see the later because God would not request what cannot be given. Therefore, eating of the tree of knowledge was not the first sin of disobedience.
Not reproducing when told to was the first sin of disobedience.
Do you agree?
Regards
DL
Gen 1; 28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
Strangely woman disappears. Then Gen 2; 18 And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'
Gen 4; 1 And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said: 'I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis indicates that Adam was not very bright. It also indicates that he somehow did not have the instincts we all have including the desire to reproduce. At least not until he ate of the tree of knowledge.
Strange to think that without breaking God’s command not to eat of the tree of knowledge, Adam would have never reproduced and none of us would be here to thank any God for creating us.
As you can see from the Eden time-line, Adam had a lot of time to know Eve, ------- yet did not do as commanded in Gen 1. In fact he waited until Gen 4.
If you, if you are a man, were told to reproduce, can you see yourself sitting there naming animals instead of enjoying sex? Do not lie. You know you would have jumped Eve in the wink of an eye. Unless you are gay that is.
Now I know that Christians have some strange notions about not having sex at certain times but the case above shows that Adam refused or was not mature enough to do God’s command. I cannot see the later because God would not request what cannot be given. Therefore, eating of the tree of knowledge was not the first sin of disobedience.
Not reproducing when told to was the first sin of disobedience.
Do you agree?
Regards
DL
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Genesis is not linear in time progression. Gen 1 stands by itself. So does Gen 2. In fact, most of the books of Genesis stand as stories all by themselves.
To assume a continuity that is not there, leaves you vulnerable to the literalists doctrines.
To assume a continuity that is not there, leaves you vulnerable to the literalists doctrines.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
LarsMac;1446214 wrote: Genesis is not linear in time progression. Gen 1 stands by itself. So does Gen 2. In fact, most of the books of Genesis stand as stories all by themselves.
To assume a continuity that is not there, leaves you vulnerable to the literalists doctrines.
Indeed and they are the ones who need the most correcting.
And since the books of the O T were not intended to be in one bible, it is not surprising that they do not mesh well.
Regards
DL
To assume a continuity that is not there, leaves you vulnerable to the literalists doctrines.
Indeed and they are the ones who need the most correcting.
And since the books of the O T were not intended to be in one bible, it is not surprising that they do not mesh well.
Regards
DL
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Not many literalists around here.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
LarsMac;1446232 wrote: Not many literalists around here.
In reality, anyone who call himself or herself a Christian must read some scriptures literally. Only a literal bible shows a real Jesus.
Regards
DL
In reality, anyone who call himself or herself a Christian must read some scriptures literally. Only a literal bible shows a real Jesus.
Regards
DL
- Singh-Song
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1446236 wrote: In reality, anyone who call himself or herself a Christian must read some scriptures literally. Only a literal bible shows a real Jesus.
Regards
DL
The Gnostic Scriptures have been lost since the 2nd century AD. Any attempt to piece things together by Gnostic revivalists from literal reading of the King James Bible, instead of attempting to do so by searching for these lost scriptures, is doomed to fail.
Regards
DL
The Gnostic Scriptures have been lost since the 2nd century AD. Any attempt to piece things together by Gnostic revivalists from literal reading of the King James Bible, instead of attempting to do so by searching for these lost scriptures, is doomed to fail.
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
The thing that catches my eye,
Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
If they were the first why would it say replenish and not just multiply and stock the earth?
Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
If they were the first why would it say replenish and not just multiply and stock the earth?
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Singh-Song;1446239 wrote: The Gnostic Scriptures have been lost since the 2nd century AD. Any attempt to piece things together by Gnostic revivalists from literal reading of the King James Bible, instead of attempting to do so by searching for these lost scriptures, is doomed to fail.
The issue was literalism. Who said anything about Gnostics here? Not me.
It is the Christian view under revue.
Regards
DL
The issue was literalism. Who said anything about Gnostics here? Not me.
It is the Christian view under revue.
Regards
DL
- Singh-Song
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1446244 wrote: The issue was literalism. Who said anything about Gnostics here? Not me.
It is the Christian view under revue.
Regards
DL
Ok, fair enough. I just thought you were talking about the specific interpretation of Christianity which you believe in, that's all...
It is the Christian view under revue.
Regards
DL
Ok, fair enough. I just thought you were talking about the specific interpretation of Christianity which you believe in, that's all...
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
YZGI;1446240 wrote: The thing that catches my eye,
Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
If they were the first why would it say replenish and not just multiply and stock the earth?
Good point.
The Christians erred when they plagiarized the Jewish text. "adam" means society or tribe, Adam means an individual.
The original was apparently adam but the Christians saw Adam and made our ancestors incestuous be necessity.
Regards
DL
Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
If they were the first why would it say replenish and not just multiply and stock the earth?
Good point.
The Christians erred when they plagiarized the Jewish text. "adam" means society or tribe, Adam means an individual.
The original was apparently adam but the Christians saw Adam and made our ancestors incestuous be necessity.
Regards
DL
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Singh-Song;1446246 wrote: Ok, fair enough. I just thought you were talking about the specific interpretation of Christianity which you believe in, that's all...
I do not believe in any scriptures as I think they were all written to initiate thought and discussions of God. To help us seek God as Jesus taught. IOW.
That is why all the contradictions were put into the bible.
To me, this is obvious, and that is why all Gods should be thought of as myth unless one suffers an apotheosis. Only then should faith without facts move to belief in any reality be given to the invisible and un-provable world.
Doubt drives away gullibility.
Regards
DL
I do not believe in any scriptures as I think they were all written to initiate thought and discussions of God. To help us seek God as Jesus taught. IOW.
That is why all the contradictions were put into the bible.
To me, this is obvious, and that is why all Gods should be thought of as myth unless one suffers an apotheosis. Only then should faith without facts move to belief in any reality be given to the invisible and un-provable world.
Doubt drives away gullibility.
Regards
DL
- Singh-Song
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1446249 wrote: I do not believe in any scriptures as I think they were all written to initiate thought and discussions of God. To help us seek God as Jesus taught. IOW.
That is why all the contradictions were put into the bible.
To me, this is obvious, and that is why all Gods should be thought of as myth unless one suffers an apotheosis. Only then should faith without facts move to belief in any reality be given to the invisible and un-provable world.
Doubt drives away gullibility.
Regards
DL
You kind of wonder though, don't you; if anyone other than yourself did suffer an apotheosis (Christianity's great example of this being Jesus), how could you yourself, or anyone else in our mundane material world, possibly hope to have knowledge of this? Using your argument, how can any claims of exaltation to the divine level be considered to be anything other than 'faith without facts', including the alleged ascension of Jesus Christ?
That is why all the contradictions were put into the bible.
To me, this is obvious, and that is why all Gods should be thought of as myth unless one suffers an apotheosis. Only then should faith without facts move to belief in any reality be given to the invisible and un-provable world.
Doubt drives away gullibility.
Regards
DL
You kind of wonder though, don't you; if anyone other than yourself did suffer an apotheosis (Christianity's great example of this being Jesus), how could you yourself, or anyone else in our mundane material world, possibly hope to have knowledge of this? Using your argument, how can any claims of exaltation to the divine level be considered to be anything other than 'faith without facts', including the alleged ascension of Jesus Christ?
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Singh-Song;1446253 wrote: You kind of wonder though, don't you; if anyone other than yourself did suffer an apotheosis (Christianity's great example of this being Jesus),
I do not see that. Christian dogma place Jesus as one of the three heads of the Trinity. He had no need to be elevated as he was always up there.
Paul of Tarsus is the only mention of apotheosis that I know of.
how could you yourself, or anyone else in our mundane material world, possibly hope to have knowledge of this?
By experiencing it.
Using your argument, how can any claims of exaltation to the divine level be considered to be anything other than 'faith without facts', including the alleged ascension of Jesus Christ?
They cannot hence my saying that they should all be seen as myth until apotheosis.
Even then, there is only proof for the victim, as even if someone is right there with him, there is nothing that can be seen.
Regards
DL
I do not see that. Christian dogma place Jesus as one of the three heads of the Trinity. He had no need to be elevated as he was always up there.
Paul of Tarsus is the only mention of apotheosis that I know of.
how could you yourself, or anyone else in our mundane material world, possibly hope to have knowledge of this?
By experiencing it.
Using your argument, how can any claims of exaltation to the divine level be considered to be anything other than 'faith without facts', including the alleged ascension of Jesus Christ?
They cannot hence my saying that they should all be seen as myth until apotheosis.
Even then, there is only proof for the victim, as even if someone is right there with him, there is nothing that can be seen.
Regards
DL
- Singh-Song
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1446256 wrote: I do not see that. Christian dogma place Jesus as one of the three heads of the Trinity. He had no need to be elevated as he was always up there.
Even when he was down here? How does that make sense? And I assume you're referring to Paul of Tarsus' mention of apotheosis in his Scriptures, stating that all humanity (excluding those sent to hell, of course) will achieve this on the Day of The Resurrection, and not making the claim that Paul himself attained apotheosis?
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1446256 wrote: By experiencing it.
Have you? Can anyone do so and still remain bound to our plane of existence?
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1446256 wrote: They cannot hence my saying that they should all be seen as myth until apotheosis.
Even then, there is only proof for the victim, as even if someone is right there with him, there is nothing that can be seen.
Regards
DL
Really? To me, that sounds like the viewpoint which only a staunch advocate of atheism or agnosticism would choose to adopt. In a faith based on anything other than absolute facts, nothing can be substantiated categorically- but try to find an example of an absolute fact, and you'll find the search constitutes more of a challenge than you might think. All we know and experience, all that we believe to be real, including ourselves, is placed within the context of human perception, and as such is fundamentally fallible.
ps, sorry for taking the thread off on bit of a tangent, but I just feel that these lines of thought have to be seen through to the end...
Even when he was down here? How does that make sense? And I assume you're referring to Paul of Tarsus' mention of apotheosis in his Scriptures, stating that all humanity (excluding those sent to hell, of course) will achieve this on the Day of The Resurrection, and not making the claim that Paul himself attained apotheosis?
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1446256 wrote: By experiencing it.
Have you? Can anyone do so and still remain bound to our plane of existence?
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1446256 wrote: They cannot hence my saying that they should all be seen as myth until apotheosis.
Even then, there is only proof for the victim, as even if someone is right there with him, there is nothing that can be seen.
Regards
DL
Really? To me, that sounds like the viewpoint which only a staunch advocate of atheism or agnosticism would choose to adopt. In a faith based on anything other than absolute facts, nothing can be substantiated categorically- but try to find an example of an absolute fact, and you'll find the search constitutes more of a challenge than you might think. All we know and experience, all that we believe to be real, including ourselves, is placed within the context of human perception, and as such is fundamentally fallible.
ps, sorry for taking the thread off on bit of a tangent, but I just feel that these lines of thought have to be seen through to the end...
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1446236 wrote: In reality, anyone who call himself or herself a Christian must read some scriptures literally. Only a literal bible shows a real Jesus.
Regards
DL
Anyone who calls himself a christian will sooner or later get involved in a punch up, literally or verbally with another christian for getting it wrong.
Regards
DL
Anyone who calls himself a christian will sooner or later get involved in a punch up, literally or verbally with another christian for getting it wrong.
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Singh-Song;1446262 wrote: Even when he was down here?
Can God's consciousness leave Jesus who was said to be 100% man and 100 % God?
I cannot see how but then I cannot see how a Ma/God can be 200 %.
How does that make sense?
It does not to me so you would have to ask a Christian. You will not be satisfied with the answer though.
And I assume you're referring to Paul of Tarsus' mention of apotheosis in his Scriptures, stating that all humanity (excluding those sent to hell, of course) will achieve this on the Day of The Resurrection, and not making the claim that Paul himself attained apotheosis?
No. I was only referring to Paul and his experience on the road to Damascus. It hit him hard enough to blind him. So the myth goes.
Have you?
Yes.
Can anyone do so and still remain bound to our plane of existence?
I am here and so is the Godhead so I would say, yes.
Really? To me, that sounds like the viewpoint which only a staunch advocate of atheism or agnosticism would choose to adopt. In a faith based on anything other than absolute facts, nothing can be substantiated categorically- but try to find an example of an absolute fact, and you'll find the search constitutes more of a challenge than you might think.
We are communicating. That is a fact.
All we know and experience, all that we believe to be real, including ourselves, is placed within the context of human perception, and as such is fundamentally fallible.
Perhaps but I am sure we can show that although fallible, it does not make important errors all that often.
ps, sorry for taking the thread off on bit of a tangent, but I just have to see these lines of thought through to the end.
No problem friend. Most O Ps get thrown off. I am used to it and even do it myself on occasion.
Regards
DL
Can God's consciousness leave Jesus who was said to be 100% man and 100 % God?
I cannot see how but then I cannot see how a Ma/God can be 200 %.
How does that make sense?
It does not to me so you would have to ask a Christian. You will not be satisfied with the answer though.
And I assume you're referring to Paul of Tarsus' mention of apotheosis in his Scriptures, stating that all humanity (excluding those sent to hell, of course) will achieve this on the Day of The Resurrection, and not making the claim that Paul himself attained apotheosis?
No. I was only referring to Paul and his experience on the road to Damascus. It hit him hard enough to blind him. So the myth goes.
Have you?
Yes.
Can anyone do so and still remain bound to our plane of existence?
I am here and so is the Godhead so I would say, yes.
Really? To me, that sounds like the viewpoint which only a staunch advocate of atheism or agnosticism would choose to adopt. In a faith based on anything other than absolute facts, nothing can be substantiated categorically- but try to find an example of an absolute fact, and you'll find the search constitutes more of a challenge than you might think.
We are communicating. That is a fact.
All we know and experience, all that we believe to be real, including ourselves, is placed within the context of human perception, and as such is fundamentally fallible.
Perhaps but I am sure we can show that although fallible, it does not make important errors all that often.
ps, sorry for taking the thread off on bit of a tangent, but I just have to see these lines of thought through to the end.
No problem friend. Most O Ps get thrown off. I am used to it and even do it myself on occasion.
Regards
DL
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
gmc;1446264 wrote: Anyone who calls himself a christian will sooner or later get involved in a punch up, literally or verbally with another christian for getting it wrong.
With what, 3,000 sects, I really don't know if I believe that, --- but my money is with your view.
Regards
DL
With what, 3,000 sects, I really don't know if I believe that, --- but my money is with your view.
Regards
DL
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1446267 wrote: With what, 3,000 sects, I really don't know if I believe that, --- but my money is with your view.
Regards
DL
And, if God truly wanted or needed us to worship him wouldn't he have made it easier by having people agree on how to worship or what to believe?
Regards
DL
And, if God truly wanted or needed us to worship him wouldn't he have made it easier by having people agree on how to worship or what to believe?
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
YZGI;1446278 wrote: And, if God truly wanted or needed us to worship him wouldn't he have made it easier by having people agree on how to worship or what to believe?
Exactly. And in the case of the plethora of Abrahamic cults, the God of all those stupidly warring sects would not allow such conduct in his presence. This shows that those cults do not even share good manners as a moral tenet. They are garbage as far as religions go.
Their God of love is dead. Thank God for that.
Watch Gnostic Christianity lead the way when free people were not the order of the day.
Regards
DL
Exactly. And in the case of the plethora of Abrahamic cults, the God of all those stupidly warring sects would not allow such conduct in his presence. This shows that those cults do not even share good manners as a moral tenet. They are garbage as far as religions go.
Their God of love is dead. Thank God for that.
Watch Gnostic Christianity lead the way when free people were not the order of the day.
Regards
DL
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
The Bible wasn't even written down as one document for centuries. It was passed by word of mouth.
That still doesn't detract from the fact that it is a Good Book full of sage advice and insightful stories to live by. Or that the New Testament is not an account of miraculous events.
That still doesn't detract from the fact that it is a Good Book full of sage advice and insightful stories to live by. Or that the New Testament is not an account of miraculous events.
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Saint_;1446297 wrote: The Bible wasn't even written down as one document for centuries. It was passed by word of mouth.
That still doesn't detract from the fact that it is a Good Book full of sage advice and insightful stories to live by. Or that the New Testament is not an account of miraculous events.
I agree that it is a fantastic book but hardly for the reasons you state.
Women Part 1 - YouTube
Holy Bible - Epic Fail - YouTube
For every good moral tenet you see, I see ten infractions to just and moral life.
I have copious issues and if you wish to debate morals I am there for that.
There is a lot of good ideas in scriptures but most have to be reversed.
Most Christians are calling evil good, as you seem to be doing, to come up with thinking that the bible is a good moral guide.
Please rethink.
Regards
DL
That still doesn't detract from the fact that it is a Good Book full of sage advice and insightful stories to live by. Or that the New Testament is not an account of miraculous events.
I agree that it is a fantastic book but hardly for the reasons you state.
Women Part 1 - YouTube
Holy Bible - Epic Fail - YouTube
For every good moral tenet you see, I see ten infractions to just and moral life.
I have copious issues and if you wish to debate morals I am there for that.
There is a lot of good ideas in scriptures but most have to be reversed.
Most Christians are calling evil good, as you seem to be doing, to come up with thinking that the bible is a good moral guide.
Please rethink.
Regards
DL
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:40 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
No. We don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, but we do know that Eve was first to realize that if she was obey the first command to multiply and replenish the earth, she would have to partake of the fruit. "And now, behold, if Adam (or Eve) had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
jchristopher;1449575 wrote: No. We don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, but we do know that Eve was first to realize that if she was obey the first command to multiply and replenish the earth, she would have to partake of the fruit. "And now, behold, if Adam (or Eve) had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."
If all that is good news, then Eden was our elevation the way Jews understand Eden and not the fall that Christianity made of it. Right?
If so, God punished us and the snake unjustly. Right?
Regards
DL
If all that is good news, then Eden was our elevation the way Jews understand Eden and not the fall that Christianity made of it. Right?
If so, God punished us and the snake unjustly. Right?
Regards
DL
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
A very subtle point that is often missed.
God to Adam (Man) not to eat of the fruit of that tree.
He did not specifically tell Eve not to do so.
Logic suggests, then that it was Adam who relayed that message to Eve.
Besides, IMHO, the whole story is a parable dreamed up to explain to children why bad things happen to good people.
God to Adam (Man) not to eat of the fruit of that tree.
He did not specifically tell Eve not to do so.
Logic suggests, then that it was Adam who relayed that message to Eve.
Besides, IMHO, the whole story is a parable dreamed up to explain to children why bad things happen to good people.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
That is not what the ancients thought.
What happened to A & E was quite good. At least toi the Jews who wrote it.
Christianity screwed up the interpretation of our elevation to our fall because it is easier to fleece the sheep who think they need to be elevated.
Joseph Campbell--On Becoming an Adult - YouTube
Regards
DL
What happened to A & E was quite good. At least toi the Jews who wrote it.
Christianity screwed up the interpretation of our elevation to our fall because it is easier to fleece the sheep who think they need to be elevated.
Joseph Campbell--On Becoming an Adult - YouTube
Regards
DL
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:40 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1449590 wrote: If all that is good news, then Eden was our elevation the way Jews understand Eden and not the fall that Christianity made of it. Right?
If so, God punished us and the snake unjustly. Right?
Regards
DL
I suppose. I'm not sure I'm familiar with the way the Jews understand Eden.
How do you figure He punished us?
If so, God punished us and the snake unjustly. Right?
Regards
DL
I suppose. I'm not sure I'm familiar with the way the Jews understand Eden.
How do you figure He punished us?
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
J C
Are you familiar with original sin and God cursing the earth when he expelled A & E from Eden?
Regards
DL
Are you familiar with original sin and God cursing the earth when he expelled A & E from Eden?
Regards
DL
- AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
From OP: "Gen 1; 28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
Strangely woman disappears. Then Gen 2; 18 And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.' "
There was an Eve before Eve & her name was Lilith. For a broad, generalized description, the following link is good enough, though on the shallow side:
Origin of the Lilith Legend - Lilith as Adam's First Wife
Strangely woman disappears. Then Gen 2; 18 And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.' "
There was an Eve before Eve & her name was Lilith. For a broad, generalized description, the following link is good enough, though on the shallow side:
Origin of the Lilith Legend - Lilith as Adam's First Wife
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
AnneBoleyn;1449667 wrote: From OP: "Gen 1; 28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
Strangely woman disappears. Then Gen 2; 18 And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.' "
There was an Eve before Eve & her name was Lilith. For a broad, generalized description, the following link is good enough, though on the shallow side:
Origin of the Lilith Legend - Lilith as Adam's First Wife
I am aware of Lilith but to Christians, she does not exist.
They only usurped part of the Jewish myth. Too complicated for them I guess.
Christian sheep can only absorb so many lies.
Regards
DL
Strangely woman disappears. Then Gen 2; 18 And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.' "
There was an Eve before Eve & her name was Lilith. For a broad, generalized description, the following link is good enough, though on the shallow side:
Origin of the Lilith Legend - Lilith as Adam's First Wife
I am aware of Lilith but to Christians, she does not exist.
They only usurped part of the Jewish myth. Too complicated for them I guess.
Christian sheep can only absorb so many lies.
Regards
DL
- AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
The above-linked myth of Lilith is told from the male perspective, as is the entire Bible. Many Jewish women today see Lilith as someone made equally to Adam, not from him as Eve. From a feminist perspective, Lilith demanded equal rights & had a stronger personality than Adam, who was weak. After all, it was Adam's job to stop Eve from eating the forbidden, it was his task & he was a poor manager. Instead of taking responsibility for this failure, he blamed Eve. Lilith didn't take his crap & Adam whined, begging God to dismiss her. Lilith being considered a demon for her strength was one of the lessons Old Testament men were determined to "teach."
- AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
jchristopher;1449656 wrote: I suppose. I'm not sure I'm familiar with the way the Jews understand Eden.
Jews consider leaving Eden the first step in mankind's ascension into the Real World; becoming Adults instead of children.
Jews consider leaving Eden the first step in mankind's ascension into the Real World; becoming Adults instead of children.
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
AnneBoleyn;1449669 wrote: The above-linked myth of Lilith is told from the male perspective, as is the entire Bible. Many Jewish women today see Lilith as someone made equally to Adam, not from him as Eve. From a feminist perspective, Lilith demanded equal rights & had a stronger personality than Adam, who was weak. After all, it was Adam's job to stop Eve from eating the forbidden, it was his task & he was a poor manager. Instead of taking responsibility for this failure, he blamed Eve. Lilith didn't take his crap & Adam whined, begging God to dismiss her. Lilith being considered a demon for her strength was one of the lessons Old Testament men were determined to "teach."
I think we are looking back with a distorted view of what the ancients were all about. In that day, women were chattel. But valuable chattel.
I think that the doublet of creation of woman was put in the bible so that intelligent people could discuss both the dominance of men and that of women.
Jews were heavily influence by the Egyptians and they were know for equality of the sexes.
Jews changed some of their own wording in scriptures just to open those doors. The old Christians did the same.
Only when Christianity started to read scriptures literally did the ----- hit the fan.
That is when religions became us and them instead of all of us.
Regards
DL
I think we are looking back with a distorted view of what the ancients were all about. In that day, women were chattel. But valuable chattel.
I think that the doublet of creation of woman was put in the bible so that intelligent people could discuss both the dominance of men and that of women.
Jews were heavily influence by the Egyptians and they were know for equality of the sexes.
Jews changed some of their own wording in scriptures just to open those doors. The old Christians did the same.
Only when Christianity started to read scriptures literally did the ----- hit the fan.
That is when religions became us and them instead of all of us.
Regards
DL
- AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
The Hebrews were Patriarchal, and some sects still are. Never missed a chance to put her in her place, so I disagree with your assessment.
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
AnneBoleyn;1449676 wrote: The Hebrews were Patriarchal, and some sects still are. Never missed a chance to put her in her place, so I disagree with your assessment.
What can I say. Asherah.
Historians have compared the misogyny of the ancient world and although it was world wide to a large extent, Greeks and Romans were said to be way worse than Jews.
Remember that in the myths, Moses gave women a hand up by changing God's divorce law. That took guts. It was not the best possible policy and heavily favored men but it still gave women a chance out of undesirable conditions.
I do not think we can really argue this though because it was likely different from one community to the next depending on resources to keep women alive who did not have a husband. It was a harsh world for women at the best of times.
Judaism 101: The Role of Women
Regards
DL
What can I say. Asherah.
Historians have compared the misogyny of the ancient world and although it was world wide to a large extent, Greeks and Romans were said to be way worse than Jews.
Remember that in the myths, Moses gave women a hand up by changing God's divorce law. That took guts. It was not the best possible policy and heavily favored men but it still gave women a chance out of undesirable conditions.
I do not think we can really argue this though because it was likely different from one community to the next depending on resources to keep women alive who did not have a husband. It was a harsh world for women at the best of times.
Judaism 101: The Role of Women
Regards
DL
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:40 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1449666 wrote: J C
Are you familiar with original sin and God cursing the earth when he expelled A & E from Eden?
Regards
DL
Yes, i believe the "fall" was a necessary step towards their (and our) eternal progression and part of the plan God devised before the organization ("creation") of this earth.
I suppose you could look at God cursing of them as a punishment of sorts, but not an unjust punishment. The multiplying of Eve's "sorrow and her conception," as well as cursing the ground for Adam's "sake," was all part of "the fall" and a necessary part of the plan of progression. This was not an afterthought that God inflicted in His anger, it was done for their "sakes." They had to be separated from God's presence so they could have children, and also so they could experience pain, sorrow, evil, etc.. The counter-doctrine to the fall is the birth, atonement, and resurrection of Jesus Christ whereby he makes intercession for all through faith on his name. The fall, combined with the atonement of Christ puts us in a state to freely choose for ourselves whom we will serve, and this freedom gives us the opportunity to obtain the experience we need to progress towards eternal life with God
Are you familiar with original sin and God cursing the earth when he expelled A & E from Eden?
Regards
DL
Yes, i believe the "fall" was a necessary step towards their (and our) eternal progression and part of the plan God devised before the organization ("creation") of this earth.
I suppose you could look at God cursing of them as a punishment of sorts, but not an unjust punishment. The multiplying of Eve's "sorrow and her conception," as well as cursing the ground for Adam's "sake," was all part of "the fall" and a necessary part of the plan of progression. This was not an afterthought that God inflicted in His anger, it was done for their "sakes." They had to be separated from God's presence so they could have children, and also so they could experience pain, sorrow, evil, etc.. The counter-doctrine to the fall is the birth, atonement, and resurrection of Jesus Christ whereby he makes intercession for all through faith on his name. The fall, combined with the atonement of Christ puts us in a state to freely choose for ourselves whom we will serve, and this freedom gives us the opportunity to obtain the experience we need to progress towards eternal life with God
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
jchristopher;1449717 wrote: Yes, i believe the "fall" was a necessary step towards their (and our) eternal progression and part of the plan God devised before the organization ("creation") of this earth.
I suppose you could look at God cursing of them as a punishment of sorts, but not an unjust punishment. The multiplying of Eve's "sorrow and her conception," as well as cursing the ground for Adam's "sake," was all part of "the fall" and a necessary part of the plan of progression. This was not an afterthought that God inflicted in His anger, it was done for their "sakes." They had to be separated from God's presence so they could have children, and also so they could experience pain, sorrow, evil, etc.. The counter-doctrine to the fall is the birth, atonement, and resurrection of Jesus Christ whereby he makes intercession for all through faith on his name. The fall, combined with the atonement of Christ puts us in a state to freely choose for ourselves whom we will serve, and this freedom gives us the opportunity to obtain the experience we need to progress towards eternal life with God
So God wanted them to fall and planed it and he punished them when they did as he wanted them to.
Your God would make quite an insane parent.
So since God murdered A & E through neglect and keeping them from what would keep them alive, the tree of life, God had also planned to murder them.
And you respect such a prick of a God. Wow.
Get thee behind me Satan.
Regards
DL
I suppose you could look at God cursing of them as a punishment of sorts, but not an unjust punishment. The multiplying of Eve's "sorrow and her conception," as well as cursing the ground for Adam's "sake," was all part of "the fall" and a necessary part of the plan of progression. This was not an afterthought that God inflicted in His anger, it was done for their "sakes." They had to be separated from God's presence so they could have children, and also so they could experience pain, sorrow, evil, etc.. The counter-doctrine to the fall is the birth, atonement, and resurrection of Jesus Christ whereby he makes intercession for all through faith on his name. The fall, combined with the atonement of Christ puts us in a state to freely choose for ourselves whom we will serve, and this freedom gives us the opportunity to obtain the experience we need to progress towards eternal life with God
So God wanted them to fall and planed it and he punished them when they did as he wanted them to.
Your God would make quite an insane parent.
So since God murdered A & E through neglect and keeping them from what would keep them alive, the tree of life, God had also planned to murder them.
And you respect such a prick of a God. Wow.
Get thee behind me Satan.
Regards
DL
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1449718 wrote: So God wanted them to fall and planed it and he punished them when they did as he wanted them to.
Your God would make quite an insane parent.
So since God murdered A & E through neglect and keeping them from what would keep them alive, the tree of life, God had also planned to murder them.
And you respect such a prick of a God. Wow.
Get thee behind me Satan.
Regards
DL
OK, I'll bite - in what way did he murder them?
Hint, changing their state from immortal to mortal as part of a preconceived plan is not murder, it is education - the state of immortality was nominal in the first instance as their days were numbered from the day of their creation.
Your God would make quite an insane parent.
So since God murdered A & E through neglect and keeping them from what would keep them alive, the tree of life, God had also planned to murder them.
And you respect such a prick of a God. Wow.
Get thee behind me Satan.
Regards
DL
OK, I'll bite - in what way did he murder them?
Hint, changing their state from immortal to mortal as part of a preconceived plan is not murder, it is education - the state of immortality was nominal in the first instance as their days were numbered from the day of their creation.
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Bryn Mawr;1449719 wrote: OK, I'll bite - in what way did he murder them?
Hint, changing their state from immortal to mortal as part of a preconceived plan is not murder, it is education - the state of immortality was nominal in the first instance as their days were numbered from the day of their creation.
Immortal to mortal??
They went from mortal to dead because God actively kept them from what would keep them alive. The tree of life.
If you locked your fridge and did not allow your children access to food and they died the way God did with A & E, do you not think you would be charged with murder by neglect?
J W are jailed today if they deny their children a transfusion.
That is a good analogy to what God did.
Would you jail a J W and not God for the same infraction?
If not, why not?
Regards
DL
Hint, changing their state from immortal to mortal as part of a preconceived plan is not murder, it is education - the state of immortality was nominal in the first instance as their days were numbered from the day of their creation.
Immortal to mortal??
They went from mortal to dead because God actively kept them from what would keep them alive. The tree of life.
If you locked your fridge and did not allow your children access to food and they died the way God did with A & E, do you not think you would be charged with murder by neglect?
J W are jailed today if they deny their children a transfusion.
That is a good analogy to what God did.
Would you jail a J W and not God for the same infraction?
If not, why not?
Regards
DL
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1449722 wrote: Immortal to mortal??
They went from mortal to dead because God actively kept them from what would keep them alive. The tree of life.
If you locked your fridge and did not allow your children access to food and they died the way God did with A & E, do you not think you would be charged with murder by neglect?
J W are jailed today if they deny their children a transfusion.
That is a good analogy to what God did.
Would you jail a J W and not God for the same infraction?
If not, why not?
Regards
DL
So by not making them immortal God murdered them? Is that, without the flim flam, what you're trying to say?
They went from mortal to dead because God actively kept them from what would keep them alive. The tree of life.
If you locked your fridge and did not allow your children access to food and they died the way God did with A & E, do you not think you would be charged with murder by neglect?
J W are jailed today if they deny their children a transfusion.
That is a good analogy to what God did.
Would you jail a J W and not God for the same infraction?
If not, why not?
Regards
DL
So by not making them immortal God murdered them? Is that, without the flim flam, what you're trying to say?
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
?? Straight language is hardly flim flam.
It is your thought and opinion I seek.
Could they be alive today if God had not acted against them by keeping them from the tree of life?
Did his doing so cause A & E's death or not?
You can do this my friend.
Regards
DL
It is your thought and opinion I seek.
Could they be alive today if God had not acted against them by keeping them from the tree of life?
Did his doing so cause A & E's death or not?
You can do this my friend.
Regards
DL
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1449724 wrote: ?? Straight language is hardly flim flam.
It is your thought and opinion I seek.
Could they be alive today if God had not acted against them by keeping them from the tree of life?
Did his doing so cause A & E's death or not?
You can do this my friend.
Regards
DL
If it was straight talking I wouldn't have called it flim flam - your analogies were non-sequiturs and aimed to distract from the logic of the argument and you'll get my thoughts and opinions without the rhetoric.
Could Adam and Eve have been alive today? As the story of Lazerus shows, we could all be alive today should God will it - can it be said that God has murdered every man, woman and child throughout history? No, it doesn't work like that.
Within the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve were immortal so by driving them out of the Garden and denying them access to the tree of life God made them mortal - but immortality is a curse and God had never intended, as you said, for them to be immortal. Whilst they were immortal they were also unable to bear children - there could be no human race within the Garden of Eden.
So what was God's plan? Was it for an immortal Adam and Eve to live eternally in the Garden of Eden?
If the answer is, as you suggested, no, then I would argue that they were never immortal in the first place. If their days were numbered from the day of their creation then, as I said in my first post, their supposed immortality was nominal rather than actual - it was a potential for immortality rather than the real thing and, as we have seen in the story of Lazarus, we all have the potential for immortality.
It is your thought and opinion I seek.
Could they be alive today if God had not acted against them by keeping them from the tree of life?
Did his doing so cause A & E's death or not?
You can do this my friend.
Regards
DL
If it was straight talking I wouldn't have called it flim flam - your analogies were non-sequiturs and aimed to distract from the logic of the argument and you'll get my thoughts and opinions without the rhetoric.
Could Adam and Eve have been alive today? As the story of Lazerus shows, we could all be alive today should God will it - can it be said that God has murdered every man, woman and child throughout history? No, it doesn't work like that.
Within the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve were immortal so by driving them out of the Garden and denying them access to the tree of life God made them mortal - but immortality is a curse and God had never intended, as you said, for them to be immortal. Whilst they were immortal they were also unable to bear children - there could be no human race within the Garden of Eden.
So what was God's plan? Was it for an immortal Adam and Eve to live eternally in the Garden of Eden?
If the answer is, as you suggested, no, then I would argue that they were never immortal in the first place. If their days were numbered from the day of their creation then, as I said in my first post, their supposed immortality was nominal rather than actual - it was a potential for immortality rather than the real thing and, as we have seen in the story of Lazarus, we all have the potential for immortality.
- AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Re: Women in ancient Hebrew civilization, & actually up to modern times were not permitted to study the Torah. The Torah is EVERYTHING to a Jew. Did you ever see or hear of Yentl?
"Barbra Streisand portrays Yentl Mendel, a girl living in an Ashkenazi shtetl named Pechev[2] in Poland in the early 20th century. Yentl's father, Rebbe Mendel (Nehemiah Persoff), secretly instructs her in the Talmud despite the proscription of such study by women according to the custom of her community....................The dramatic story incorporates humor and music to relate the odyssey of an Ashkenazi Jewish girl in Poland who decides to dress and live like a man so that she can receive an education in Talmudic Law after her father dies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yentl_(film)
This movie, based on a short story by Isaac Bashevis Singer, who knew a thing or two, is based on Truth.
The Hebrew woman may or may not have exerted some influence in the home, but The Torah was the Only Thing That Mattered, & she was Not Allowed to play a part. (Unless, like Yentl, she disguised herself as male). It is not just an Ashkenezi thing either, it was always true of the Ancient Jews as well. When you're deprived of what really matters............hardly equality.
"Barbra Streisand portrays Yentl Mendel, a girl living in an Ashkenazi shtetl named Pechev[2] in Poland in the early 20th century. Yentl's father, Rebbe Mendel (Nehemiah Persoff), secretly instructs her in the Talmud despite the proscription of such study by women according to the custom of her community....................The dramatic story incorporates humor and music to relate the odyssey of an Ashkenazi Jewish girl in Poland who decides to dress and live like a man so that she can receive an education in Talmudic Law after her father dies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yentl_(film)
This movie, based on a short story by Isaac Bashevis Singer, who knew a thing or two, is based on Truth.
The Hebrew woman may or may not have exerted some influence in the home, but The Torah was the Only Thing That Mattered, & she was Not Allowed to play a part. (Unless, like Yentl, she disguised herself as male). It is not just an Ashkenezi thing either, it was always true of the Ancient Jews as well. When you're deprived of what really matters............hardly equality.
- AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
You really can't take a Christian view of the Pentateuch, it just doesn't work. Thinking all scriptures lead to Jesus is a perversion.
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
AnneBoleyn;1449727 wrote: You really can't take a Christian view of the Pentateuch, it just doesn't work. Thinking all scriptures lead to Jesus is a perversion.
Who thinks that the Pentateuch leads to Jesus? I'm taking it as a creation story in its own right
Who thinks that the Pentateuch leads to Jesus? I'm taking it as a creation story in its own right
- AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
For example: “It is a tree of life to all who grasp it, and whoever holds on to it is happy; its ways are ways of pleasantness, and all it paths are peace." (Proverbs 3:17-18) refers back to:
Proverbs 3:1, etc, all prior to 17: "My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:
For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee." ETC. (KJV)---don't feel like dusting off my copy of Pentateuch.
The Tree of Life is the LAW, not what you are suggesting, DL.
eta--It was the Law A&E broke, nothing more. As for their punishment, if Jesus paid for all sin, why do women still suffer in childbirth? Because it was an explanation, nothing more, of why women suffer in childbirth. Maybe it comes from passing a football through a hole 10 centimeters, how's that for the true answer???????
Proverbs 3:1, etc, all prior to 17: "My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:
For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee." ETC. (KJV)---don't feel like dusting off my copy of Pentateuch.
The Tree of Life is the LAW, not what you are suggesting, DL.
eta--It was the Law A&E broke, nothing more. As for their punishment, if Jesus paid for all sin, why do women still suffer in childbirth? Because it was an explanation, nothing more, of why women suffer in childbirth. Maybe it comes from passing a football through a hole 10 centimeters, how's that for the true answer???????
- AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Bryn Mawr;1449728 wrote: Who thinks that the Pentateuch leads to Jesus? I'm taking it as a creation story in its own right
That's because you're a sensible man.
That's because you're a sensible man.
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
AnneBoleyn;1449730 wrote: That's because you're a sensible man.
Me? I just like an argument :wah:
Me? I just like an argument :wah:
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:40 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
AnneBoleyn;1449729 wrote: For example: “It is a tree of life to all who grasp it, and whoever holds on to it is happy; its ways are ways of pleasantness, and all it paths are peace." (Proverbs 3:17-18) refers back to:
Proverbs 3:1, etc, all prior to 17: "My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:
For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee." ETC. (KJV)---don't feel like dusting off my copy of Pentateuch.
The Tree of Life is the LAW, not what you are suggesting, DL.
eta--It was the Law A&E broke, nothing more. As for their punishment, if Jesus paid for all sin, why do women still suffer in childbirth? Because it was an explanation, nothing more, of why women suffer in childbirth. Maybe it comes from passing a football through a hole 10 centimeters, how's that for the true answer???????
Forgive me. I haven't read your whole discussion here, so maybe I'm missing something, but do you think Christ's atonement for sin was supposed to wipeout all pain and suffering? Do you equate pain and suffering with sin?
Proverbs 3:1, etc, all prior to 17: "My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:
For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee." ETC. (KJV)---don't feel like dusting off my copy of Pentateuch.
The Tree of Life is the LAW, not what you are suggesting, DL.
eta--It was the Law A&E broke, nothing more. As for their punishment, if Jesus paid for all sin, why do women still suffer in childbirth? Because it was an explanation, nothing more, of why women suffer in childbirth. Maybe it comes from passing a football through a hole 10 centimeters, how's that for the true answer???????
Forgive me. I haven't read your whole discussion here, so maybe I'm missing something, but do you think Christ's atonement for sin was supposed to wipeout all pain and suffering? Do you equate pain and suffering with sin?
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
jchristopher;1449736 wrote: Forgive me. I haven't read your whole discussion here, so maybe I'm missing something, but do you think Christ's atonement for sin was supposed to wipeout all pain and suffering? Do you equate pain and suffering with sin?
The argument being that mensturation and childbirth were specifically given to Eve as "punishment" for her sin :-
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
and that the expiation of all sin should have therefore removed it.
The argument being that mensturation and childbirth were specifically given to Eve as "punishment" for her sin :-
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
and that the expiation of all sin should have therefore removed it.
- Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
Was Adam's first sin that of not reproducing?
Bryn Mawr;1449725 wrote: If it was straight talking I wouldn't have called it flim flam - your analogies were non-sequiturs and aimed to distract from the logic of the argument and you'll get my thoughts and opinions without the rhetoric.
Could Adam and Eve have been alive today? As the story of Lazerus shows, we could all be alive today should God will it - can it be said that God has murdered every man, woman and child throughout history? No, it doesn't work like that.
Within the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve were immortal so by driving them out of the Garden and denying them access to the tree of life God made them mortal - but immortality is a curse and God had never intended, as you said, for them to be immortal. Whilst they were immortal they were also unable to bear children - there could be no human race within the Garden of Eden.
So what was God's plan? Was it for an immortal Adam and Eve to live eternally in the Garden of Eden?
If the answer is, as you suggested, no, then I would argue that they were never immortal in the first place. If their days were numbered from the day of their creation then, as I said in my first post, their supposed immortality was nominal rather than actual - it was a potential for immortality rather than the real thing and, as we have seen in the story of Lazarus, we all have the potential for immortality.
Only if you want to believe in miracles and magic.
Without those, you have nothing.
"but immortality is a curse"
Strange that you would think that God himself is cursed.
Perhaps that is why even though he could cure all those he has murdered, he chose the satanic way and killed them.
Regards
DL
Could Adam and Eve have been alive today? As the story of Lazerus shows, we could all be alive today should God will it - can it be said that God has murdered every man, woman and child throughout history? No, it doesn't work like that.
Within the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve were immortal so by driving them out of the Garden and denying them access to the tree of life God made them mortal - but immortality is a curse and God had never intended, as you said, for them to be immortal. Whilst they were immortal they were also unable to bear children - there could be no human race within the Garden of Eden.
So what was God's plan? Was it for an immortal Adam and Eve to live eternally in the Garden of Eden?
If the answer is, as you suggested, no, then I would argue that they were never immortal in the first place. If their days were numbered from the day of their creation then, as I said in my first post, their supposed immortality was nominal rather than actual - it was a potential for immortality rather than the real thing and, as we have seen in the story of Lazarus, we all have the potential for immortality.
Only if you want to believe in miracles and magic.
Without those, you have nothing.
"but immortality is a curse"
Strange that you would think that God himself is cursed.
Perhaps that is why even though he could cure all those he has murdered, he chose the satanic way and killed them.
Regards
DL