by onacruse 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Im sorry but this topic really is reaching. It makes no sense at all.Please feel free to elaborate! Or does your represent the totality of your insights on this?
The original sin reaches everyone, even those to whom it makes no sense at all. The wages of sin are paid to all who sin (al humans except Jesus Christ), and those who take on sin (Jesus Christ). The wages are suffering and death.
Because the original sin was buttsecks!!! This whole line of inquiry assumes that the genesis account happened exactly as it was written and is therefore speculative at best. What is the purpose of speculating about what the original sin actually was when there is a larger issue at hand.................The BELLYBUTTONS!!!! DID THEY HAVE ANY FREAKIN' BELLYBUTTONS?!?!?!?! GOD!
Lumptard:
The BELLYBUTTONS!!!! DID THEY HAVE ANY FREAKIN' BELLYBUTTONS?!?!?!?! GOD!
agapa37, perhaps you can answer this for us? Inquiring minds want to know.
Onacruise:
Lumptard:
The BELLYBUTTONS!!!! DID THEY HAVE ANY FREAKIN' BELLYBUTTONS?!?!?!?! GOD!agapa37, perhaps you can answer this for us? Inquiring minds want to know.
It's funny how you used part of my post (which was pointing out the superfluousness of this thread) to taunt agapa37....Obviously the sarcasm was lost on you....Whoosh!
My guess is that since neither Adam nor Eve were born, that they would not have had umbilical cords, thus no belly buttons in the usual sense of the term.
By the way, Jesus quoted from the Genesis account. Since he was Wisdom the Master Worker in heaven before miraculously transferred to earth, he was surely there to review the results of the original sin. God's surveillance system surely works better than modern video camera.
— I am Q. Bert, after all
Q. Bert:
By the way, Jesus quoted from the Genesis account. Since he was Wisdom the Master Worker in heaven before miraculously transferred to earth, he was surely there to review the results of the original sin.
The only way this argument can be true is if you presuppose that Jesus was actually who he said he was, and that the genesis account happened as written..... the only way to prove that is by using the very document (bible) that makes the statements in question. It doesn't work logically. Basically you are saying that the Genesis account is true because it is in the bible. Weak argument at best.
Lumptard, your sarcasm wasn't lost on me. However, I did "use" it in a way that was less than courteous. For that, I apologize to you and to agapa37.
How else could the One divine intelligence who is in all, through all, and around all, instigate free will. I think it was his gift to man.
Man and animal are locked in to their own nature. Man is not free to transcend what it is his nature to do.
Man is a rational animal. FREE WILL can only be free when there is benefit to the choices involved. For example, choosing betweening a nap and a bullet to the brainpan is not much of a choice. Choosing between flapping our arms and flying to Philadelphia or eating a hamburger is not a real choice. We are what we are and who we are because it is our nature to be what we are.
Instigated free will is a misnomer.
A rock is not free to roll uphill and man cannot choose to choose if he is not free in the first place.
The Adam and Eve story passed through many hands before being written down in its present form.
The story contains at least three different theories overlaid one atop the other.
1.Disobedience.
2.Sex
3.Trickery and deceit
1.Disobedience at going against the injunction to leave the fruit alone. (Blame from one character passed to the next.)
2.The "fruit" becomes metaphorical sex and this is revealed in the pair covering themselves in shame.
3.The serpent deceiving the woman and enticing her with the reward of knowledge and power.
As the Jewish people grew more sophisticated about theology the rabbinical explanations took in more feasible areas of ethical justification for condemning the human race.
Moreover, the very idea that misbehavior (sin) could be genetically transmitted from parent to child bespeaks ignorance and naivete befitting a primitive people.
After all, the idea was once pervasive that a child could take on characteristics according to how the mother acted and determined by what the mother saw has continued up to fairly recent times. Children were superstitiously thought to be susceptible to being "marked" by some unwitting activity by the mother.
This was thought to be true about animals and people.
Original Sin is not just one belief, but; many.
The Bible is quite confused about what this is because so many ideas have been stirred into the pot over time and explanations at one layer seem to contradict later ideas grafted on by more enlightened thinkers.
Even today--you'll find many theories as to what Original Sin might have been.
It isn't crystal clear because it is a hodge-podge mythology subject to constant revisions.
The idea, for example, that Satan was the "original serpent" is a late explanation. The jews didn't really have a Satan until they were carried off to Babylonian ideas and returned to rebuild their theology with colorful late additions.
So too--blaming women because of Eve is rather peculiar idea as well. Adam was the CEO of the human family and his leadership stunk. Yet, the woman, Eve acquires most of the culpability.
The story is a very handy way (and always has been) of justifying social "norms" and prejudices against sex and women.
onacruse,
Just from reading that account from the Bible and only the Bible, the original sin did not have anything to do with their sexual organs. As stated by the Bible in Genesis the 3rd chapter the original sin was an act of disobedience. Eating from that one specific tree was off limits.
So, if the "sin" of Adam and Eve was eating a forbidden fruit, then why wasn't their first impulse to hide their hands? or to wipe off their mouths?
That question is besides the factual point. There is no "IF" when it comes to the original sin. It is very clear within that account that it "WAS" the sin. We cannot be sure why they didn't hide their hands or wipe off their mouths, unless you mean that in the sense that God "caught" them in the act, like someone would catch a little kids hand in a cookie jar and he quickly pulls it out and hides his hands behind his back. If that is how you mean it, which is how you are putting it,
"Now, ordinarily, when we get caught doing something "wrong," we try to hide the "offending" member (the child tries to hide his hand that has the 'stolen' cookie; we hurriedly try to pull our pants back on when Mom walks in unexpectedly while we're masturbating, etc.).
then there is an answer for it. The Bible says that God did not catch them in the act, it wasn't until later on after the act, when God confronted them about it. So there is your answer! It is quit easily seen when you read it.
