Does anyone get it about original sin.

[GSOgymrat]

I don't think of humans as inherently flawed or evil creatures that need fixing, which is one reason I'm not Christian. I don't see the world that way.

[1liesalot]

This is classical control.  Make everybody a natural born sinner and then you can control how they can stop sinning. 

This is what Gen. 1 says:

26 Then God said, o“Let us make man8 in our image, pafter our likeness. And qlet them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
   27    So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
rmale and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, s“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. tYou shall have them for food. 30 And uto every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 vAnd God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

So, after reading the first book in the buybull, we are told that god made man and woman at the same time.  There is no Adam.  No Eve.  And no Garden.  Plus, who is this 'we' that is referred to?  I guess god had some buddies up there with him and mankind must be a committee construct.   BTW, this is a good little read for those who keep telling us of original sin.

It is just so weird that people swallow this nonsense. It is utter drivel.

[Mike Cl]

It is just so weird that people swallow this nonsense. It is utter drivel.

Ain't that the truth!

[Baruch]

dtq123 gets it ... because pessimism ... same reason why I get it.  I don't accept it, but the idea keeps buzzing around my head and I keep trying to "Raid" the little bugger ;-)

TomFoolery ... it is poor theology, to explain original sin as sexually transmitted ... but that is what made sense when giving sermons to illiterates (most of our ancestors).

There is a metaphysical reason which explains the idea of "original sin" ... but this isn't an audience with much patience for metaphysics ;-)  Bringing Kabbalah into it, clarifies it a lot ... as bringing in actual Jewish knowledge, usually clarifies the confuddlement of Christians regarding Bible topics.

[Mike Cl]

dtq123 gets it ... because pessimism ... same reason why I get it.  I don't accept it, but the idea keeps buzzing around my head and I keep trying to "Raid" the little bugger ;-)

TomFoolery ... it is poor theology, to explain original sin as sexually transmitted ... but that is what made sense when giving sermons to illiterates (most of our ancestors).

There is a metaphysical reason which explains the idea of "original sin" ... but this isn't an audience with much patience for metaphysics ;-)  Bringing Kabbalah into it, clarifies it a lot ... as bringing in actual Jewish knowledge, usually clarifies the confuddlement of Christians regarding Bible topics.

So, Baruch, what is your take on why Gen 1 comes first?  Or why is it in the bible at all?  It is at odds with Gen 2; how can people not see that one is totally different than the other?

[Baruch]

I will give a short answer, but if we get too deep and wide into Bible stuff, we need our own string or maybe a room ;-)

The Bible was cobbled together by multiple authorities thru the years.  The individual books were also cobbled together by multiple authors (usually) also thru the years, along with strategic and selective editing.  In Kabbalah, there are two main schools, Maaseh Bereshit and Maaseh Merkavah ... contemplation of Genesis and contemplation of Ezekiel.  Maaseh Bereshit would have something to say about your Genesis question, as would the gaggle of folks responsible for the various movements that were mythologized as the "one true faith" of the 1st century CE ... because clearly some of those folks were of Maaseh Bereshit.  Writers of apocalypse literature (Dead Seas scrolls and Revelation of John) were of Maaseh Merkavah.

Taking a quick dive into the Genesis kiddie pool ... Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were both old and popular at the time that Genesis was composed, as a prequel to Exodus.  This was probably at the time of King Hezekiah to King Josiah.  King Hezekiah had to deal with Israelites fleeing into Judah to escape the Assyrians circa 750 BCE ... and the two chapters probably reflect the N version vs the S version.  150 years later in the time of King Josiah circa 600 BCE, Deuteronomy (first version) was being written ... so Genesis thru Numbers was probably a done deal more or less.  Further editing probably happened with the Torah (first five books) in the time of Ezra, who was the Jewish agent of the Persian king ... and who created the nearly complete Tanakh (OT).  Ezra was around 500-400 BCE.

The internal meaning of the texts show two main differences in emphasis.  Genesis 1 is mainly concerned about cosmogony ... the making of the world, with humans as an afterthought.  But its anthropomorphism is gender neutral (the male term describes both a mixed gender group or an exclusively male group).  Genesis 2 is mainly concerned with sociology ... the making of humans, and why women are inferior to men.  In Genesis 1, we can still imagine the extra biblical story, known even to Socrates, that men and women were originally created conjoined, and having been separated, constantly seek to come back together again.  Kabbalah was open to such extra biblical material.

Of course since I approvingly find the Bible as human (others find that a weakness) ... and have no truck with divine origin, inerrancy or perfection ... I am not disturbed by the content as you are.  To really get into it, one would have to be comfortable with metaphysics and contemplation ... the best I have found involves using Aramaic as a way into the underlying meaning of the text (I didn't invent this, I borrowed it from a profound teacher than I met in several books).  In Kabbalah, there are four levels of exegesis.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Actually I had it explained once in a way that almost makes sense.

After eating the fruit (nothing says it was an apple) God comes along and says "what did you do and why did you do it?"  Adam said "Eve made me do it" and Eve said "the Serpent made me do it."

God facepalmed, and then said "You idiots don't get it.  Had you fessed up that would have been the right thing to do, but the first thing you do after learning right from wrong is to choose to avoid responsibility for what you did.  Get out of my garden."

Of course, from a Jewish point of view, nobody inherited original sin.  What happened is that once no longer in the garden people aged normally and died normally because they weren't in the garden.  It had nothing to do with being born sinful.

[GSOgymrat]

... by Adam & Steve.

[Baruch]

Jason ... gets it.  Christian analysis of the OT, usually is lacking in Jewish knowledge, and devolves into deconstruction (in a negative way).  And the Gnostic interpretation is that the expulsion was a good thing, like graduating from HS.  It is in childhood that we are supposed to be obedient.  Having become disobedient, the adult thing is to take responsibility and not say "the serpent ate my homework".  If Adam had said that, us guys would have to bear children ;-)

[SGOS]

This reminds me of a committee of learned theologians sitting around and intellectually dissecting and interpreting fictional Bible bullshit.  We don't need to make sense out of this because it's nothing more than fiction.  The bigger question is not why God banished Adam and Eve from the garden, or why a fictional act of disobedience makes us all born sinful, but rather why people believe this.  The later question seeks an answer to something real, a dynamic that is actually happening.  The first is a futile question about something that is not true, never happened, and amounts to little more than a silly story for the ignorant and gullible.

[Mike Cl]

I will give a short answer, but if we get too deep and wide into Bible stuff, we need our own string or maybe a room ;-)

The Bible was cobbled together by multiple authorities thru the years.  The individual books were also cobbled together by multiple authors (usually) also thru the years, along with strategic and selective editing.  In Kabbalah, there are two main schools, Maaseh Bereshit and Maaseh Merkavah ... contemplation of Genesis and contemplation of Ezekiel.  Maaseh Bereshit would have something to say about your Genesis question, as would the gaggle of folks responsible for the various movements that were mythologized as the "one true faith" of the 1st century CE ... because clearly some of those folks were of Maaseh Bereshit.  Writers of apocalypse literature (Dead Seas scrolls and Revelation of John) were of Maaseh Merkavah.

Taking a quick dive into the Genesis kiddie pool ... Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were both old and popular at the time that Genesis was composed, as a prequel to Exodus.  This was probably at the time of King Hezekiah to King Josiah.  King Hezekiah had to deal with Israelites fleeing into Judah to escape the Assyrians circa 750 BCE ... and the two chapters probably reflect the N version vs the S version.  150 years later in the time of King Josiah circa 600 BCE, Deuteronomy (first version) was being written ... so Genesis thru Numbers was probably a done deal more or less.  Further editing probably happened with the Torah (first five books) in the time of Ezra, who was the Jewish agent of the Persian king ... and who created the nearly complete Tanakh (OT).  Ezra was around 500-400 BCE.

The internal meaning of the texts show two main differences in emphasis.  Genesis 1 is mainly concerned about cosmogony ... the making of the world, with humans as an afterthought.  But its anthropomorphism is gender neutral (the male term describes both a mixed gender group or an exclusively male group).  Genesis 2 is mainly concerned with sociology ... the making of humans, and why women are inferior to men.  In Genesis 1, we can still imagine the extra biblical story, known even to Socrates, that men and women were originally created conjoined, and having been separated, constantly seek to come back together again.  Kabbalah was open to such extra biblical material.

Of course since I approvingly find the Bible as human (others find that a weakness) ... and have no truck with divine origin, inerrancy or perfection ... I am not disturbed by the content as you are.  To really get into it, one would have to be comfortable with metaphysics and contemplation ... the best I have found involves using Aramaic as a way into the underlying meaning of the text (I didn't invent this, I borrowed it from a profound teacher than I met in several books).  In Kabbalah, there are four levels of exegesis.

Thanks for the answer.  It is clearer for me now.  I am not really 'bothered' by the two versions, as much as bemused about it.  And I do think I understand why all the leaders are drawn to the second version (Adam and Eve) since it sets up many different ways of establishing and maintaining control over women and also men.  What 'bothers' me about Gen 1 is that it is almost universally ignored--seems to be the ultimate cherry pick--or at least, the first cherry pick of the bible.

[Mike Cl]

Actually I had it explained once in a way that almost makes sense.

After eating the fruit (nothing says it was an apple) God comes along and says "what did you do and why did you do it?"  Adam said "Eve made me do it" and Eve said "the Serpent made me do it."

God facepalmed, and then said "You idiots don't get it.  Had you fessed up that would have been the right thing to do, but the first thing you do after learning right from wrong is to choose to avoid responsibility for what you did.  Get out of my garden."

Of course, from a Jewish point of view, nobody inherited original sin.  What happened is that once no longer in the garden people aged normally and died normally because they weren't in the garden.  It had nothing to do with being born sinful.

Yeah, that almost does make sense.  Except that God set that whole thing up, including the snake.  He created the minds of Adam and Eve, so he knew what they would do.  He put the forbidden tree there, knowing full well what the two humans, and the snake would do.  Allowing the humans to live in a total paradise for awhile, knowing they would break his contrived rules and be tossed out, is one of the ultimate cold-hearted, evil things god could have done.  It would be sort of like putting a lion and gazelle into the same cage--and then blaming and punishing the lion for killing and eating the gazelle.

[1liesalot]

What the fuck is so sinful about eating an apple. God is such a cretinous arse-hole of the nth degree.

[TomFoolery]

Yeah, that almost does make sense.  Except that God set that whole thing up, including the snake.  He created the minds of Adam and Eve, so he knew what they would do.  He put the forbidden tree there, knowing full well what the two humans, and the snake would do. 

Agreed. He might as well have painted a bench, stuck a wet paint sign on it and dared them to not touch it. Or invented a big red button and said never push it. People are naturally curious. You don't get to make them naturally curious in "your own image" and then punish people for it without being a giant dick.

[MagetheEntertainer]

Original sin goes back to the concept of punishing ones children for the crime of the father or grandfather.  Back in ancient times there were plenty of things you could be put to death for so they had to think of something worse then putting you to death which was killing you plus punishing your child, grandchild etc...  So the original sin was apparently so bad that it requires ALL generations of Adam's offspring to be punished unless they accept Jesus which is gods little loop hole of going around that.  I can kind of understand where it came from from a history standpoint but definitely not a logical one.