The Philosophy of Original Sin, Dissecting Genesis.

[PsychoSarah]

Ever notice how Cain and Able were tending flocks and fields, tithing to a religion? How much food does a family of 4 need in a tropical paradise?

* The earth was populated and religion existed.


Gen 4

"Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. 4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast."



But the explanation doesn't make sense.......unless there was another reason that Able taunted Cain

Raising animals was viewed as more prestigious than growing crops. Meat = wealth. Especially for men. To this day there are cultures that view growing crops as a female responsibility; it would be like being a male midwife in the 1950s.

 

[Colter]

Raising animals was viewed as more prestigious than growing crops. Meat = wealth. Especially for men. To this day there are cultures that view growing crops as a female responsibility; it would be like being a male midwife in the 1950s.

Right, and considering this creation story was being retold by the Hebrew authors through their male dominated worldview, we can see that same bias about what God would like to have tithed thousands of years earlier.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Right, and considering this creation story was being retold by the Hebrew authors through their male dominated worldview, we can see that same bias about what God would like to have tithed thousands of years earlier.

That, combined with previously existing sacrificial preferences of other cultures and religions. It also explains why god apparently has to solve everything with an explicit show of force, like the Flood, or as I like to think of it, god rage quitting like I do over a simulation game. "Everything is going wrong, therefore I must destroy it all and start over essentially from scratch".

 

[Colter]

That, combined with previously existing sacrificial preferences of other cultures and religions. It also explains why god apparently has to solve everything with an explicit show of force, like the Flood, or as I like to think of it, god rage quitting like I do over a simulation game. "Everything is going wrong, therefore I must destroy it all and start over essentially from scratch".

Or, the Hebrew authors were unable to trace their all important blood lines back to a much older than know Adam, so, they just decided to drown the whole world in its own wickedness to fill the gap!

Notice, it"s a genealogy interrupted by a ridiculous, world wide flood. NO other race on earth traces their origins back to Noah.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Or, the Hebrew authors were unable to trace their all important blood lines back to a much older than know Adam, so, they just decided to drown the whole world in its own wickedness to fill the gap!

Notice, it"s a genealogy interrupted by a ridiculous, world wide flood. NO other race on earth traces their origins back to Noah.

-_- the flood story is plagerized from other religions so heavily that the greatest differences are names and numbers. It literally still fits another religion better than it fits in the bible.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ever notice how Cain and Able were tending flocks and fields, tithing to a religion? How much food does a family of 4 need in a tropical paradise?

They were no longer in Eden at this time. There is no indication of a religion or tithing (offerings are always distinct from tithes).

* The earth was populated and religion existed

.

Only a small area of the earth.


Gen 4

"Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. 4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast."

But the explanation doesn't make sense.......unless there was another reason that Able taunted Cain

Sure it does. Abel was 'Christ' figure, a shepherd. Cain was a 'Satan' figure, desiring the death of 'Christ'. Cain didn't 'do well' as did Abel.

Recall that Genesis is about beginnings, not endings (conclusions).

 

[Colter]

They were no longer in Eden at this time. There is no indication of a religion or tithing (offerings are always distinct from tithes).

.

Only a small area of the earth.


Gen 4

"Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. 4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast."





Sure it does. Abel was 'Christ' figure, a shepherd. Cain was a 'Satan' figure, desiring the death of 'Christ'. Cain didn't 'do well' as did Abel.

Recall that Genesis is about beginnings, not endings (conclusions).

According to the story (which is inconsistent) their were only 4 people on the earth, even in garden 2 they would have had an abundance of food without flocks and fields.

I believe Cain was he bastard child resulting from Eves sin. Eve mated with one whom she found "pleasing to the eye". Cain's real father was a Nodite. Able constantly taunted Cain because he was a living reminder of the fall of Adam and Eve.

The evolved earth was already populated, that's why we keep digging up their bones all over the place.

 

[PsychoSarah]

According to the story (which is inconsistent) their were only 4 people on the earth, even in garden 2 they would have had an abundance of food without flocks and fields.

I believe Cain was he bastard child resulting from Eves sin. Eve mated with one whom she found "pleasing to the eye". Cain's real father was a Nodite. Able constantly taunted Cain because he was a living reminder of the fall of Adam and Eve.

The evolved earth was already populated, that's why we keep digging up their bones all over the place.

Ok... So why were Adam and Eve special then?

 

[Colter]

Ok... So why were Adam and Eve special then?

The UB reveals some interesting things, when we look back at the fragmented Genesis story we can compare.

Adam & Eve were materialized celestial beings, apparently every evolutionary world receives such a pair, they are the 2nd revelatory visitation that a world receives in a succession of Sons. The first is a "planetary prince" who begins the revelatory teaching about the Universal Father to the primitive inhabitants of a given world.

* Our Prince "Caligastia" is said to have arrived 500,000 years ago and began his work uplifting the races of the earth.

* Roughly 300,000 years into his reign, Caligastia fell into sin and rebellion of the Fathers rule lead by Lucifer and his able assistant Satan.


* 150,000 after the fall of our world Adam and Eve were dispatched, 38,000+ B.C

* This is really where Genesis begins, the remnants of those ancient times were in the Persian story of creation adopted by the Hebrew authors of Genesis while in Babylon.

* Notice that the "crafty beast" is already evil, the world was already populated (Cain finds wife in Nod)


* Adam and Eve were to all intents and purposes, Gods coming down from heaven in the primitive minds of those distant days. They were on the earth about 100 years before Eve succumb to the suggestions of the crafty beast, decided to inject her superior DNA into the gene pool to speed up fixing this backward world. That was the sin, huge no-no! So the legend of the pair and their fall lead to "original sin" doctrine.


So our world has suffered from a double default.

After Adam and Eves fall it was decided that this would be the world of the incarnation of the Son.

 

[Wololo]

I don't understand why the story needs to be literal at all. We have to throw science out the window to take the creation story and original sin literally.

Genesis is written in the Hebrew chiastic structure, and written well after the events (I believe the consensus is that it was Moses who wrote it). This means that the stories were likely passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth and storytelling. If we examine the creation story, we can see that it's very easy to remember the order. The style of writing is very Hebrew as well. It's rather clear that it was meant to be a truth (God is creator) told in a medium that is easy to understand and remember. We know the order of creation and who is the creator, and essentially that's what matters there. One does not have to take the story literally in order to understand its purpose is.

This is further accentuated by the lack of 'evening and morning' on the 7th day. It wasn't intended to be taken literally.

The story of Adam and Eve is right after and is written in the same context. It doesn't make any scientific sense that Adam and Eve were real people. There would have been a gigantic number of genetic issues that would have cropped up. We don't know where they would have originated from as people. There is no evidence for 6 day creation and no evidence that man sort of popped into existence into the world that already existed. Something empirical like this does require evidence, and it's totally lacking here.

This doesn't discredit or do away with original sin, it just expresses it in a story that is easy to remember. One does not need to have eaten the fruit and disobeyed God to have sinned.

Sin is not an action, it's a decision made in your mind. It's a rebellion against God...putting yourself in his place. Eve sinned before she even took the apple. She told the serpent that God had told her not to even touch the fruit. This was a lie! God said not to eat it, but he didn't say not to touch it. Secondly, Eve was already in the image of God and yet she took the serpent's word that eating the fruit would make her 'more like God'.

You can tell the story in a completely different way and still end up with the same point...the same moral to the story.

 

[Colter]

I don't understand why the story needs to be literal at all. We have to throw science out the window to take the creation story and original sin literally.

Genesis is written in the Hebrew chiastic structure, and written well after the events (I believe the consensus is that it was Moses who wrote it). This means that the stories were likely passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth and storytelling. If we examine the creation story, we can see that it's very easy to remember the order. The style of writing is very Hebrew as well. It's rather clear that it was meant to be a truth (God is creator) told in a medium that is easy to understand and remember. We know the order of creation and who is the creator, and essentially that's what matters there. One does not have to take the story literally in order to understand its purpose is.

This is further accentuated by the lack of 'evening and morning' on the 7th day. It wasn't intended to be taken literally.

The story of Adam and Eve is right after and is written in the same context. It doesn't make any scientific sense that Adam and Eve were real people. There would have been a gigantic number of genetic issues that would have cropped up. We don't know where they would have originated from as people. There is no evidence for 6 day creation and no evidence that man sort of popped into existence into the world that already existed. Something empirical like this does require evidence, and it's totally lacking here.

This doesn't discredit or do away with original sin, it just expresses it in a story that is easy to remember. One does not need to have eaten the fruit and disobeyed God to have sinned.

Sin is not an action, it's a decision made in your mind. It's a rebellion against God...putting yourself in his place. Eve sinned before she even took the apple. She told the serpent that God had told her not to even touch the fruit. This was a lie! God said not to eat it, but he didn't say not to touch it. Secondly, Eve was already in the image of God and yet she took the serpent's word that eating the fruit would make her 'more like God'.

You can tell the story in a completely different way and still end up with the same point...the same moral to the story.

Hi Wololo, are the sons of Adam and all the other lineage not real?

 

[Wololo]

Hi Wololo, are the sons of Adam and all the other lineage not real?

They are incomplete.

To answer your question more directly, I generally don't view anything pre-Abraham as being a direct account of actual historical events. This includes the flood.

 

[Colter]

They are incomplete.

To answer your question more directly, I generally don't view anything pre-Abraham as being a direct account of actual historical events. This includes the flood.

I see Genesis as a mixture of facts, inaccurately preserved oral tradition, exaggeration and deliberate alterations made in Babylon when most of the material was compiled, redacted and edited. The vantage point of the narrative is Babylon, the audience is the scattered Israelite community who had lost their nation and were once again in bondage. The OT books were a sort of religious-patriotic-nationalistic series of faith supporting books that gave hope to the flagging faith of the Hebrews.

Note: the secular history books mentioned within the OT books did not survive.

 

[Colter]

I never did believe in the account of Noah's flood. The Urantia Book has an interesting explanation about how such a story could have been adopted and believed during the times of the writing of the OT books in Babylon.

The Floods in Mesopotamia​

"The river dwellers were accustomed to rivers overflowing their banks at certain seasons; these periodic floods were annual events in their lives. But new perils threatened the valley of Mesopotamia as a result of progressive geologic changes to the north.

For thousands of years after the submergence of the first Eden the mountains about the eastern coast of the Mediterranean and those to the northwest and northeast of Mesopotamia continued to rise. This elevation of the highlands was greatly accelerated about 5000 B.C., and this, together with greatly increased snowfall on the northern mountains, caused unprecedented floods each spring throughout the Euphrates valley. These spring floods grew increasingly worse so that eventually the inhabitants of the river regions were driven to the eastern highlands. For almost a thousand years scores of cities were practically deserted because of these extensive deluges.

Almost five thousand years later, as the Hebrew priests in Babylonian captivity sought to trace the Jewish people back to Adam, they found great difficulty in piecing the story together; and it occurred to one of them to abandon the effort, to let the whole world drown in its wickedness at the time of Noah’s flood, and thus to be in a better position to trace Abraham right back to one of the three surviving sons of Noah.

The traditions of a time when water covered the whole of the earth’s surface are universal. Many races harbor the story of a world-wide flood some time during past ages. The Biblical story of Noah, the ark, and the flood is an invention of the Hebrew priesthood during the Babylonian captivity. There has never been a universal flood since life was established on Urantia. The only time the surface of the earth was completely covered by water was during those Archeozoic ages before the land had begun to appear.

But Noah really lived; he was a wine maker of Aram, a river settlement near Erech. He kept a written record of the days of the river’s rise from year to year. He brought much ridicule upon himself by going up and down the river valley advocating that all houses be built of wood, boat fashion, and that the family animals be put on board each night as the flood season approached. He would go to the neighboring river settlements every year and warn them that in so many days the floods would come. Finally a year came in which the annual floods were greatly augmented by unusually heavy rainfall so that the sudden rise of the waters wiped out the entire village; only Noah and his immediate family were saved in their houseboat.

These floods completed the disruption of Andite civilization. With the ending of this period of deluge, the second garden was no more. Only in the south and among the Sumerians did any trace of the former glory remain.

The remnants of this, one of the oldest civilizations, are to be found in these regions of Mesopotamia and to the northeast and northwest. But still older vestiges of the days of Dalamatia exist under the waters of the Persian Gulf, and the first Eden lies submerged under the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea." UB 1955​

 

[OldWiseGuy]

According to the story (which is inconsistent) their were only 4 people on the earth, even in garden 2 they would have had an abundance of food without flocks and fields.

Adam and Eve kept having children after Abel and Cain were born.

I believe Cain was he bastard child resulting from Eves sin. Eve mated with one whom she found "pleasing to the eye". Cain's real father was a Nodite. Able constantly taunted Cain because he was a living reminder of the fall of Adam and Eve

.

There is something sexual in Eve's sin.

The evolved earth was already populated, that's why we keep digging up their bones all over the place.

Adam and Eve were the first modern humans.

 

[Colter]

Adam and Eve kept having children after Abel and Cain were born.

.

There is something sexual in Eve's sin.



Adam and Eve were the first modern humans.

Göbekli Tepe 10,000 BC










Göbekli Tepe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Göbekli Tepe 10,000 BC









From the Wikipedia link:


Göbekli Tepe is regarded as an archaeological discovery of the greatest importance since it could profoundly change the understanding of a crucial stage in the development of human society. Ian Hodder of Stanford University said, "Göbekli Tepe changes everything".


Everything is always changing, isn't it?

 

[Colter]

Yes, our understanding of everything is supposed to grow.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hi Wololo, are the sons of Adam and all the other lineage not real?

Probably not in any literal sense. Also, technically Jesus wasn't a part of David's lineage because it was Joseph, not Mary, who was the parent with that bloodline, and he didn't (going by scripture) father Jesus. Or have sex with his wife for that matter before Jesus was born.

 

[Colter]

Probably not in any literal sense. Also, technically Jesus wasn't a part of David's lineage because it was Joseph, not Mary, who was the parent with that bloodline, and he didn't (going by scripture) father Jesus. Or have sex with his wife for that matter before Jesus was born.

I don't believe in the virgin birth story, I think Joseph and Mary were married and conceived Jesus the natural way, the miracle was the Son becoming the person of the child.

Blood lines were only important to the erroneous linkage to David required by the Jewish priest.