Is "ORIGINAL SIN" a misleading and unnecessary con

[2Dbunk]

This Biblical story suggests that Adam and Eve squandered eternal life and bliss in the Garden of Eden when they ate fruit from the forbidden apple tree – the tree of Knowledge of good and evil. This resulted in the death sentence of all humans the way I understand the story. That is how we all became sinners -- religionists say: “original sin!�

Okay, but here’s the rub: Let’s say Adam and Eve DID NOT eat of that fateful tree, and lived in the Garden for many years without knowing sin. Their children, Cain and Able were born, also without that knowledge, as the second generation of humanity. If Adam and Eve lived all that time without doing anything wrong (what are the chances of that?), then could the second generation perfectly avoid the urge to do some evil thing or two? If so, what about the third generation, or the fourth? As the offspring multiplied, the chances of doing evil would grow exponentially, eventually causing the family to be ousted from the Garden.

Well, we are told the second generation violated God’s law with the famous murder of Able by Cain – probably an event that would have justified eviction from the Garden. But wait, murder was not yet defined as a sin since no one yet had knowledge of evil – that would come later from God’s deliverance of the stone tablets to Moses containing the Ten Commandments . Confusing isn't it?

Probably by this time some of the offspring may have eaten the forbidden fruit and the family would have been evicted from Eden (you know how kids are, doing the opposite of what their parents say). I guess what I’m trying to say is that the knowledge of good and evil was inevitable, if not with Adam and Eve, then with the next generation, or the next, and so on.

So why the big deal over Eve’s temptation? Did the writers of the Bible mean-fully find this as a way of suppressing women. They were already condemned as �unclean� because of their monthly menstrual ordeal, but I guess that wasn’t enough for the male scribes who wanted to ensure male supremacy for the ages. Does anyone care to comment?

[PinSeeker]

God’s Devil
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/gods-devil/

Dualism, that philosophical idea that says good and evil are two equal and eternal forces, is shown to be false in the Word of God in its very first verse. When the Bible says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth� (Gen. 1:1), the words the heavens and the earth are a synonym for “all things.� In the beginning, God created all things; this includes the Devil. Although he is very powerful, Satan is ultimately a finite creature who is by no means a match for our Lord.

Though He created the Devil, God is not in any way culpable for evil. Like everything else, Satan was originally “very good� (v. 31), and how Satan could fall when there was no evil present in creation is a great mystery. Still, we know our Creator cannot be tempted with evil, nor can He ever tempt anyone (James 1:13).

That Satan is a creature means he is subject to the Lord, who uses him to fulfill His good purposes (Rom. 8:28). In the final analysis, the Devil is God’s Devil (to summarize Martin Luther) and never operates outside the Lord’s decree. This truth can be seen when we compare today’s passage with 2 Samuel 24. Applying material from the books of Samuel to the Israelites after the Babylonian exile, the Chronicler tells us Satan incited David to take a census of Israel (1 Chron. 21:1) even though 2 Samuel 24:1 says God moved David on that occasion. This is no contradiction; it illustrates the doctrine of providence. Since God is sovereign over all, everything that happens is grounded in His plan. David commanded a census because the Lord ultimately planned that he do so, but Satan was used as the secondary cause to incite David. God ordained David’s sin, but He is not to blame for the temptation, for Satan did the tempting. In this case we might say the Lord “allowed� Satan to tempt David in order to clarify the point that God does not stand behind evil deeds in the same way that He does behind goodness. But make no mistake, John Calvin tells us, God’s decree of evil is not “bare permission — as if God sat in a watchtower, awaiting chance events, and his judgments thus depended upon human will� (Institutes 1.18.1).

That God rules over Satan without Himself being guilty of sin is a hard truth, but it is also comforting. It tells us that what we suffer from the Devil, his demons, and all evil is not purposeless but will lead to our good and God’s glory.

God is much greater than we are, so He is able to do things that we could never do, such as being sovereign over the Devil without ever being guilty of the Devil’s evil. Knowledge of this truth should not only move us to glorify the Lord but also to be confident that every tragedy we meet will serve a good purpose when all is said and done. If you are going through a difficult time, know that God is using it for your good even if you cannot yet see how.

[John Human]

I guess what I’m trying to say is that the knowledge of good and evil was inevitable, if not with Adam and Eve, then with the next generation, or the next, and so on. So why the big deal over Eve’s temptation?

Here are my thoughts, for whatever they're worth. (I've said some of the things below on other threads in other sub-forums.)

1. "Tree of knowledge of good and evil" is very clearly a metaphor. By implication, "eat" is also a metaphor. A special type of metaphor is a euphemism, politely misstating something so as to not offend with the bald truth.

2. There is both good and evil in the act of sexual intercourse. This is the obvious meaning behind the euphemistic "eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

3. The serpent tempted Eve and she ate. Translation: Eve masturbated. Eve went to Adam and shared: they fornicated. Then they covered their offending private parts with fig leaves when God showed up.

4. The "original sin" was disobedience combined with acting out of lust. We all "participate" in "original sin" at the moment of our conception, pervaded by the lustful feeling of at least one of our parents. However, it is indeed possible to conceive without lust, if we take seriously the Catholic recognition of the "immaculate conception" of Mary (free from original sin, *ahem.*)

5. As implied by Paul, Jesus was the reincarnation of Adam. For millenia, reincarnation has been one of the cultural presuppositions of orthodox Jews, including Jesus himself (according to the Bible), who recognized John the Baptist as the reincarnation of Elijah. All this is discussed with sources on this thread: viewtopic.php?t=35420

6. For point #5 above to make sense, we have to set aside the "Virgin Birth" as a later fabrication, which is easily done when we recognize that Jesus never said any of the following three interlocking doctrines:
a) Jesus never said that we are condemned to eternal damnation because of our participation in "original sin."
b) Jesus never said that the divine Jesus was born as a result of the divine Holy Spirit entering the womb of Mary and impregnating her.
c) Jesus never said that the divine Jesus, through his sacrifice on the cross, atoned for our sins, enabling those who believe in him to escape from eternal damnation.
--If you take away any one of the above three points, the other two become meaningless as points of doctrine. All three were clearly fabricated together.

7. If we go back before the promulgation of the "Virgin Birth" myth, it makes sense to imagine that the original Christians (some of whose writings are preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls), seeing Jesus as the reincarnation of Adam, imagined that Jesus's sacrifice on the cross was atonement for his own "original sin" (from his past life as Adam), which opened the door to "eternal life" for those who took Jesus seriously and emulated his example ("no one comes to the Father except through me" -- John 14:6).

Obviously the above analysis doesn't fit a "literalist infallible" interpretation of the Bible (the combined view that the Bible, understood literally, is without error). It seems that, around this forum at least, the Bible is routinely interpreted both by Christians and by atheists in a literalist way that throws things like nuances and metaphors out the window. I think that is a mistake.

[EBA]

Prove it.

.
It's all right there. No proving necessary. All you have to do is read it... correctly.

Well that’s one way to dodge the bullet. Why not just admit that you can’t prove it instead of hiding behind, “All you have to do is read it... correctly.?�

I'm all ears. Teach me.

Well that's really the problem, isn't it? Are you saying you're teachable? Because from what I see, like a lot of the posters here, you're not. Perhaps I'm wrong about you.

The problem seems to be that since I disagree with you, you judge me to be “unteachable.�

And yes, you are wrong about me.