critical thinking made ez

Would you agree that the original sin committed by both Satan and Man was one of Envy?

Both Envied Gods power/position etc and they wanted to be equal or greater than he. My question is why is this wrong?

This is a basic natural trait of man. It was very apparent in man before the fall as well as after. He is an achiever, he desires to be the best at what he attempts. He wants power and strength. He wants control over his destiny. These are all traits of our finest people on earth, and while they can also be found in the worst of man, wanting to be like God should be good and wanting to be like Satan should be the bad version.

The Sin of Envy should have only materialized upon the attempted destruction of God through the use of such power. And this was not attempted by man, only Satan.

So why was man punished for following his natural human trait to be like his hero, God?

Liquidrage

If you attempt to make sense of something that has none then you'll just end up "spinning".

There is no logic to original sin.
It's just a story and, by today's standards, a poorly designed one at that.

Though it serves the purpose of enforcing the belief that it is a sin to question god.
Which is a very important trait of the Abrahamic religions. It is cultic in that it requires absolute faith. Any wavering from God's word is a sin and must be quelched. There is no leeway here. If it's the word of god, do not question it.

-DM-

Before one is capable of distinguishing right from wrong, there can be no genuine "sin."

--Don--

Amos

The only wrong with our concept sin is that we view it as a negative while it is really a good thing to be a sinner. Remember here that the Laws were given to Moses to convict man of sin and thus not to stop man from sin. Moreover, if the cross of eternal salvation is for sinners only, and if salvation is desired, sin must be good!

The creation of sin is a form of censorship that led to the success of our mythology and this keen insight into the human nature of man is what turned Moses' hair white on that mountaintop of inspiration already way back then.

Prior to this in Gen. 3 woman saw that the TOK was good for creating wisdom and the very first censorship already triggered the desire to know. Sin is good, and our ego is good, and a bigger ego is better, but, in the end, we must not be subdued by it to the point that we suffer under its oppression from various societal diseases such as cancer, sexual diseases, migranes, infertility etc.

Amos

emotional

The original sin, according to Presup Apologists (been reading a lot of Van Til lately...), is freethought: God said to Adam and Eve that they would die on the day of eating the fruit, and they, instead of obeying him like good, wholesome kids, actually had the nerve to have minds of their own and think freely (gasp!) about those words.

Theism in a nutshell:
1. Naughty children, how dare you disobey?
2. Do what Daddy says. Daddy knows best.
3. Those who do what Daddy says get eternal candy.
4. Those who disobey Daddy get eternal spanking.

Ernest Sparks

How does it go?

Lucifer the highest angelic being wanted to be God. God can't brook that, so Lucifer and his friends were cast out of Heaven and cursed forever. Eve and Adam also wanted to be God, but being physical as well as spiritual, they suffered less blame. They were made subject to death and the sorrows of this world. Eve, being the first to disobey, was also forced to have periods and suffer in childbirth. God left the door open for a Savior of humankind. But they have to make it through physical life first.

emotional

</strong>

Reminds me of Joseph Stalin in his 1930s purges of those who excercised too much power to his liking...

</strong>

Aha. And rainbows have nothing to do with light being broken to its constituent colours, it is just a reminder of God's promise not to flood the world again.

*YAWN* ...and they lived happily ever after. THE END.

vaelarin

You asked two questions with one really.

Original sin in Bible, the idea of Adam and Eve taking the fruit from the tree of knowledge has several characteristics to it that most people just overlook. First, there is no mention in Genesis that the serpent is "Satan". It's just a talking serpent. Joseph Campbell gave some insight on this story in The Power of Myth, telling how the Hebrews worshiping their male god, entered Canaan, a land dominated by the worship of a female goddess (redundancy to punctuate the point The Adam and Eve myth shows that woman, representing the goddess of Canaan, fell from grace and took man with her. It is a clear rejection of the goddess in favor of the god.

The myth of Satan being an angel who fell is biblically derived from a single word, transliterated rather than translated, from the Latin Vulgate Bible of St. Jerome.

So, I'd say that 'original sin' is little more than an ancient Hebrew myth, misapplied and turned into a guilt trip to give power to the church.

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: vaelarin ]</p>

critical thinking made ez

Please don't bring any factual history into this discussion, this is just about the words and meanings from the Bible,... period. Christians won't believe anything from outside the words of God who they believe wrote it. So please stay with us on this point. You will soon learn Facts mean nothing to Christians unless they back-up their current or previous beliefs.

Again, irrelevant to the points being discussed. Christians believe and well should from numerous passages that the "creature" turned snake, turned Satan is one and the same. I agree with them that they have Bibical facts to prove that point.

Your opinion as to the source of the Garden Story is irrelevant.

Your answers are not even close to the question posed. We are looking for the reason(s) (from within the Bible or character of God) of why God endowed man with a trait that God would immediately destroy man for displaying.

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: critical thinking made ez ]</p>

Amos

The mistake you make is already in thinking that Adam and Eve ate from the apple because Adam and Eve were not created until after "man and woman" ate from the apple.

This makes Adam and Eve the conjectured images in which they were no longer naked to wit (cf, naked with no shame in Gen.2 and naked with shame in Gen.3).

The serpent now becomes the negative stand of the ego identity and Adam the positive stand. Both are illusions but it is the best we have and so we must go by them. They make up the drive of our ego identity.

Amos