The Philosophy of Original Sin, Dissecting Genesis.

[PsychoSarah]

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.

Fair enough, although many consider the idea of Mary being a virgin, or at the very least Jesus not being a product of typical reproductive means, to be "evidence" of his divinity. That and the "miracles". Personally, I think Jesus was an accomplished magician whose "magical feats" ended up exaggerated over time. Heck, pretty much anyone can do the water-to-wine trick with enough practice. And it wasn't uncommon for various "medicine men" of the time to employ such tricks, not to be deceitful necessarily, but so as to convince people to take the real treatments. As it happens, the Jews at the time had some of the best medical practices. Hence, making him seem like this miraculous healer, because his treatments actually worked. Combine that with the human tendency to exaggerate and suddenly you have yourself a messiah.

 

[Colter]

Fair enough, although many consider the idea of Mary being a virgin, or at the very least Jesus not being a product of typical reproductive means, to be "evidence" of his divinity. That and the "miracles". Personally, I think Jesus was an accomplished magician whose "magical feats" ended up exaggerated over time. Heck, pretty much anyone can do the water-to-wine trick with enough practice. And it wasn't uncommon for various "medicine men" of the time to employ such tricks, not to be deceitful necessarily, but so as to convince people to take the real treatments. As it happens, the Jews at the time had some of the best medical practices. Hence, making him seem like this miraculous healer, because his treatments actually worked. Combine that with the human tendency to exaggerate and suddenly you have yourself a messiah.

.....and then the Jews conspired with Jesus and Pilate to fake a crucifixion, stab him, fake a resurrection???

I don't agree with you at all on the magic Jesus conspiracy, I've practiced what he taught and found it to be true today.

 

[mmksparbud]

Well, the conspiracy of the "magician" and His disciples was pretty extensive--all of them had to be in on it--after all, it is not Jesus who wrote the Gospels, it was the disciples who wrote them, long after His death and resurrection. So it would be far more accurate to say that it was the disciples that pulled all this off, Christ wrote only one thing--whatever it was He wrote on the ground when the adultress was taken in the act and was about to be stoned. I assume that was wiped out pretty quickly.So it is the disciples that made up the stories of His feeding the 5,000 on 5 fish and 2 loaves, of Him walking on water, even of the water to wine, and I guess the whole town was pretty much in on the illusion of raising Lazarus from the dead--maybe Lazarus himself faked it all, but he must have been in a pretty sad state when he came out of the sepulcher after 4 days bound up in linen--not to mention, pretty foul without any way of going to the bathroom all that time. And it was just hysterics that made the blind and lame from birth be healed--or they and everyone who knew them were all liars. Then, of course, the only thing to do is to keep insisting that it's all true, even under intense persecution, and tortuous death for all but one. Got to give them credit for sticking to their lies for years and dieing for them, most of us won't die for the truth, but to die gruesome deaths for a lie, that's pretty gutsy.

 

[Colter]

Well, the conspiracy of the "magician" and His disciples was pretty extensive--all of them had to be in on it--after all, it is not Jesus who wrote the Gospels, it was the disciples who wrote them, long after His death and resurrection. So it would be far more accurate to say that it was the disciples that pulled all this off, Christ wrote only one thing--whatever it was He wrote on the ground when the adultress was taken in the act and was about to be stoned. I assume that was wiped out pretty quickly.So it is the disciples that made up the stories of His feeding the 5,000 on 5 fish and 2 loaves, of Him walking on water, even of the water to wine, and I guess the whole town was pretty much in on the illusion of raising Lazarus from the dead--maybe Lazarus himself faked it all, but he must have been in a pretty sad state when he came out of the sepulcher after 4 days bound up in linen--not to mention, pretty foul without any way of going to the bathroom all that time. And it was just hysterics that made the blind and lame from birth be healed--or they and everyone who knew them were all liars. Then, of course, the only thing to do is to keep insisting that it's all true, even under intense persecution, and tortuous death for all but one. Got to give them credit for sticking to their lies for years and dieing for them, most of us won't die for the truth, but to die gruesome deaths for a lie, that's pretty gutsy.

Agreed, if the Jesus story was a conspiracy, the players themselves didn't seem to know it and whoever concocted it did a poor job.

 

[PsychoSarah]

.....and then the Jews conspired with Jesus and Pilate to fake a crucifixion, stab him, fake a resurrection???

I don't agree with you at all on the magic Jesus conspiracy, I've practiced what he taught and found it to be true today.

No, he probably was crucified. However, given the inconsistency even in the bible on the supposed witnesses to his resurrection, it wouldn't shock me if that bit was purely fabricated.

I never said he was without wisdom, or, at least, what he supposedly said. It is a shame so many people preach the faith and yet don't follow those teachings.

 

[Colter]

No, he probably was crucified. However, given the inconsistency even in the bible on the supposed witnesses to his resurrection, it wouldn't shock me if that bit was purely fabricated.

I never said he was without wisdom, or, at least, what he supposedly said. It is a shame so many people preach the faith and yet don't follow those teachings.

The creature may crave perfection, but only the creator possesses it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The creature may crave perfection, but only the creator possesses it.

The creator who claims itself perfect is a victim of their own hubris. A perfect being is incapable of making mistakes. In the bible, god does make mistakes.

 

[Colter]

The creator who claims itself perfect is a victim of their own hubris. A perfect being is incapable of making mistakes. In the bible, god does make mistakes.

That's how you know that God didn't write the Bible. Gods created beings and subordinates might commit error but not God.

The Bible, or current Bible book list of one church (some churches have more books in their bible) is a very young collection of books. From Moses to now it only spans about 3,500 years in its own integral claims. Before Moses there was NO Bible. Perhaps other forms of writing from the previous religions but no Bible.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's how you know that God didn't write the Bible. Gods created beings and subordinates might commit error but not God.

The Bible, or current Bible book list of one church (some churches have more books in their bible) is a very young collection of books. From Moses to now it only spans about 3,500 years in its own integral claims. Before Moses there was NO Bible. Perhaps other forms of writing from the previous religions but no Bible.

Ok, so I fully agree with you that no deity wrote the bible. From what I have gathered:

1. You don't view the bible as divinely authored
2. You view a great deal of the bible as allegory
3. You view the document as flawed

So I really have to wonder why you believe any of it. Thus far I don't even see how this text is related to your personal faith beyond some basic ideas.

Oral tradition was the primary means by which religion was spread and maintained in ancient times. Centuries of telephone game

 

[Colter]

Ok, so I fully agree with you that no deity wrote the bible. From what I have gathered:

1. You don't view the bible as divinely authored
2. You view a great deal of the bible as allegory
3. You view the document as flawed

So I really have to wonder why you believe any of it. Thus far I don't even see how this text is related to your personal faith beyond some basic ideas.

Oral tradition was the primary means by which religion was spread and maintained in ancient times. Centuries of telephone game

Well, on balance there is very little in the Bible that I believe as accurate, factual, word for word, complete historic perfection. Even non biblical histories are suspect, biased. How many books are there about the American civil war? But it did happen.

We here urban legend all the time today, but if we run it by Snopes.com we find that some things just are not true, were not said even though a good many people think certain things are true.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, on balance there is very little in the Bible that I believe as accurate, factual, word for word, complete historic perfection. Even non biblical histories are suspect, biased. How many books are there about the American civil war? But it did happen.

We here urban legend all the time today, but if we run it by Snopes.com we find that some things just are not true, were not said even though a good many people think certain things are true.

Which is part of the reason why I take most things with a grain of salt. Some things far more salt.

 

[Colter]

Which is part of the reason why I take most things with a grain of salt. Some things far more salt.

What's remarkable to me is the stuff that was preserved in the Bible although misunderstood by the authors who incorporated those events into a theology.

The Urantia revelation provides much more information about the pre-Adamic history of our planet.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What's remarkable to me is the stuff that was preserved in the Bible although misunderstood by the authors who incorporated those events into a theology.

The Urantia revelation provides much more information about the pre-Adamic history of our planet.

More likely it reads into the ancient text and effort-fully tries to make it seem more reasonable.

 

[Colter]

More likely it reads into the ancient text and effort-fully tries to make it seem more reasonable.

That's what revelation does, it sorts and sensors previous teachings that evolved from previous revelation.

The Bible has never made any sense to me.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's what revelation does, it sorts and sensors previous teachings that evolved from previous revelation.

The Bible has never made any sense to me.

Then why let others make sense of it for you? Other people who stand to profit from doing so, no less. And I don't mean necessarily physical money when I say profit.

 

[Colter]

Then why let others make sense of it for you? Other people who stand to profit from doing so, no less. And I don't mean necessarily physical money when I say profit.

What are you referring to in "profiting" ?

 

[fhansen]

The book of Genesis and the ideas therein serve as the foundation for original sin philosophy as well as the creation of man.

The narrative of Genesis is a retrospective, written from the vantage point of the people in one age concerning their religious heritage as it relates to the experience of their ancestors. It provides and explanation for where they are and were they hope to go as a faithful people.

The vantage point is the captivity period of Babylon which the redacted material dates to. Some elements of the writings appear older but are mixed with redactions or edits that place the writings around the period of the captivity.

The narratives make interesting but inconsistent statements about "original sin" as well as original man.

* Adam and Eve are said to have materialized as first, a full grown man, then a full grown women, both of whom are previously educated, speak the same language and have a knowledge of a Gods requirements for them. Considering what we know about the earth now, it's age, the evolutionary record of life exposed by geology and archaeology, Adam and Eve would be classified as extra terrestrial.​

* An unexplained "crafty beast" appears in the narrative (later books would say he was the devil). This beast was already fallen, already evil, already working against Gods plan for the pair, he spoke the same language, he also knew what Gods will was for them. Sin was already on the earth in the fallen devil, it was not original to A&E. The crafty beast was Sinful, first Eve then Adam succumb to the persuasions of the "beast".​

* There were 2 important trees in the garden home, one was the figurative tree of forbidden fruit (opposing Gods will) the other was "the tree of life" (it sustained the pairs immortality status) but was taken from them upon their fall. Death came to the pair, not the earth. Death was already normal for man, we can see that in the archeological record.

*** The sin of Eve caused a biological change within her descendants, the severe pains of childbirth experienced by certain demographics in the world, not the entire population.

* Cain would leave the garden after killing his brother, but he was fearful of the tribes of a populated earth. He would go to the land of Nod where he found a wife and became ruler of a city.​

The philosophy of original sin does not stand up to scrutiny even within the narrative used to establish the concept.

Sin has always been a choice inherent within the children of God high and low. Death is a normal fact of life, Christ himself elected to pass through the experience of death while on earth.

The essential message is that humankind was meant to commune with God, and, once separated from Him, with the knowledge of God basically lost, life changes for us; it becomes hard; we're dead, lost when the Author and Source of life is rejected, no longer acknowledged, no longer "partnered" with. This is the lot of mankind, and this is why sin/moral evil prevails in this world. Man actually loses control when he tries to assume control above and beyond his natural boundaries. When he becomes his own god, IOW, failing to recognize his limitations, misery inevitably and eventually results.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What are you referring to in "profiting" ?

There are many forms of profit sir, not all of which are direct physical money (although just having frequent visitors to a site can do that). Social profit as well as cultural profit provide sorts of power over others, when you know how to use them.

 

[Colter]

The essential message is that humankind was meant to commune with God, and, once separated from Him, with the knowledge of God basically lost, life changes for us; it becomes hard; we're dead, lost when the Author and Source of life is rejected, no longer acknowledged, no longer "partnered" with. This is the lot of mankind, and this is why sin/moral evil prevails in this world. Man actually loses control when he tries to assume control above and beyond his natural boundaries. When he becomes his own god, IOW, failing to recognize his limitations, misery inevitably and eventually results.

It would be nice if, while trying to say something so simple, they would have said what you said instead of saying something else.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The essential message is that humankind was meant to commune with God, and, once separated from Him, with the knowledge of God basically lost, life changes for us; it becomes hard; we're dead, lost when the Author and Source of life is rejected, no longer acknowledged, no longer "partnered" with. This is the lot of mankind, and this is why sin/moral evil prevails in this world. Man actually loses control when he tries to assume control above and beyond his natural boundaries. When he becomes his own god, IOW, failing to recognize his limitations, misery inevitably and eventually results.

Fair enough point, except religious people are just as prone to doing that as those who aren't.