Food for thought

braincleaned

Why is it said that we "inherited" sin?

We all know the old 'dented cake mold' illustration... but it doesn't follow logic.

It was obviously not obligatory that we "inherited" sin. The birth of Jesus PROVES that when Jehovah feels like it, he can make a child born perfect from an imperfect mother, like Mary!

He could have easily made Cain & Abel perfect...

Hence, the only reason Adam & Eve had "imperfect" kids is because Jehovah WANTED them to pay for their parent's sin!

Think about that for a moment. The last CO I asked that to threw his arms in that air and left my house. Yep...

braincleaned

Ouch — my post sat less than a second on the main page... hope some of you see this and react. :)

Doug Mason

I think you might need to research Church Father Augustine for the concept of "original sin".

Doug

breakfast of champions

Yep, even god anwers to his own legal requirements - except when he decides to change them!

I've become more aware of how the society embraces the legalism of the bible's god. . . .

Shouldn't be surprising, though. Their second president was a lawyer and the whole damn thing is run by lawyers!

braincleaned

I'm VERY familiar with Augustine's view on sin. But this does not address my post.
Jesus was still born from a woman who was part of the " condemned crowd"... his birth is proof that the condemnation was modifiable.

There is no going around it.

adamah

braincleaned said-

It was obviously not obligatory that we "inherited" sin. The birth of Jesus PROVES that when Jehovah feels like it, he can make a child born perfect from an imperfect mother, like Mary!

The Christian doctrine of inherited sin makes no sense from Jewish beliefs, for SOOOO many reasons. For one, the sinner himself must repent and atone for his own sins, and no one else could do it for him. Upon his death, his "sin account" slate was wiped clean.

The idea of "inherited sin" is also an ancient concept from the days where heirs could not only inherit the patriarch's wealth upon his death, but also would inherit their DEBTS. That's long-since been abandoned as a useless vestige of the past. Same goes for the idea of disease and death resulting from sins (which was the basis by which Jesus healed: he was authorized to forgive sins). Instead, modern men now understand stuff like how microorganisms could sickness, and other disease mechanisms.

As usual though, the apologetist believers quickly back-pedal by claiming, "But that's metaphorical!" when they are referring to beliefs that were once held as literal truths.

PS the reason God didn't create Cain and Abel as perfect was because the name of the game in the Genesis 4 is about "post-hoc rationalization": it was intended to explain WHY things were as they were in 500BC, and not with the idea of what a perfect God COULD'VE done in 3,500 BC. The story was likely designed to justify why one should offer the best when sacrificing to God, as well as explaining why the Hebraic criminal justice system was an improvement over what Cain experienced by being sentenced to eternal wandering.

I wrote an article on the subject of Cain's manslaughter here.

Adam

grumblecakes

Braincleaned-I've often wondered this same thing. Never made any sense to me. Especially considering JWs claim that God is perfect in justice...

Also, why so much suffering when you have the power to stop it?

"Oh, its to show his sovereignty"

If you're all powerfull though, why not go about it a better way? The sheer amount of human suffering over the entire history of humanity is way out of porportion. The point (assuming it was a real one) would have been proven looong ago. If you can accomplish anything you want, all powerful, all mighty, then there has to be a better way.

Also, all through the old testimate, thousands of men, women, and children were slaughtered merely for not being born Isrealites...but they had no control over that. If God ultimately created ALL humanity (albeit through Jesus) why would he create non Isrealites only to punish them by death for being created by him?

Why would God allow miracles to prove his existence during only one period in time? Why would God provide inspired texts, but make them so vauge and wide open for interpretation that realistically know one could ever be sure what the hell was meant by them.

If God wanted loyalty and love from people, wouldn't it make sense for him to make his existence plain and irrefutable, in which case anyone who chose not to worship him did so because they were clearly disloyal and not because they were just mistaken and confused?

Island Man

Braincleaned, there is a difference between the conception of Jesus and that of the offspring of Adam and Eve. In the case of Jesus, no imperfect human father was involved. But the imperfect man Adam was involved in the conception of Eve's children. So you see, there is a logic to it - bronze age, male chauvinistic, quack genetics.

It appears that the traditional belief among the ancients at the time was that inheritance is passed on only through males. Presumably, this is where the rational for the male inheritance law for passing on family property came from. It seems that this belief is responsible for the implicit reasoning that Jesus is free from sin because of not having an imperfect human Father. It also explains why the bible says: "Through one MAN sin entered into the world and death through sin" even though it was Eve - a WOMAN - who was actually the first sinner. But you see, because she was a woman, she could not have passed on sin to all mankind. Only the man - Adam - could bequeath sin to their progeny. Thus the bible says that it is though Adam that sin entered into the world of mankind. That's the quack genetics logic behind the virgin birth story.

The Watchtower seems to be blind to this inconvenient fact of male chauvinistic quack genetics among the ancients. They state that Jehovah also used his spirit to prevent imperfection from Mary corrupting the embryo of Jesus. In reality though, the purpose of the spirit - as clearly indicated by the angel - was to miraculously fertilize Mary's egg. It had nothing to do with preventing Mary's imperfection being passed on, because as a woman she could not pass it on! To illustrate my point, think about this: If the spirit served to overcome Mary's imperfection, then doesn't that render the whole virgin birth unecessary? For could Jehovah not have done the same for imperfect human sperm coming from Joseph? Couldn't Joseph have been Jesus' natural father just as Mary was his natural mother by Jehovah using his spirit to overcome the imperfection in Joseph's sperm the same as he did for the imperfection in Mary's egg? Of course he could have! The fact that he didn't confirms that the real issue is one of sin being bequeathed only through the male parent, and thus the need to avoid Jesus having an imperfect human male parent by using holy spirit.

You're right though. It doesn't make sense - because it's based on quack genetics.

prologos

without considering what was relevant in 500 or 1500 BC, wich is important by itself, ---

in the original story set in the garden with the talking snake,

The thing that stood between perfect long life and natural "everything created was GOOD" life, were the swords that barred the way to

THE TREE OF LIFE, something to take into the body to give it the final or continuing boost.

The story of Mary's firstborn offspring should be not different. that boost came from something she took into her body.

How Jesus' death removed the swords, and the ransom was paid by transfering the value ( like funds) from one account of God's to another of his accounts. must be rooted in legal niceties and accounting practises.

Whenever you have a wt speaker on the mike, always remember : This man believes in the talking snake, and all that ilogically follows.

that is food for thought

braincleaned

Well said, adamah.

Yep grumblecakes, it's all about His glory and ego.

VERY interesting Island Man — opens a whole new can of worms, huh?

Lol prologos — true.

Food for thought

Share this