Evolution is real=No Adam and Eve=No Sin

Aizen (@aizen) 8 years, 9 months ago

Evolution is how we came to be if this is true (which it is so far) that means no adam and eve which means no such thing as sin, which in turn means no reason for a savior. Thoughts!

March 1, 2013 at 2:15 pm
adam (71) (@adamd) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

Maybe the story of Adam and Eve is not meant to be taken literally?

[Hidden]
Orla (0) (@orla0magenta) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

I think you’re right, no sin, however, we all believe actions or things are “bad”, and feel that if we do them we are “sinning” so we don’t do them.

[Hidden]
Anonymous (130) (@) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

Sinning is the idea of doing something that is against the will of god -which only the greatly superior “chosen ones” know. So sinning is, from the perspective of the religious pseudo philosophy fed to the masses, rebelling against authority.

[Hidden]
Aizen (21) (@aizen) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

@adamd, Your correct its not it was actually just a metaphor. @orla0magenta, abosultly! Where I’m coming from is that the teaching that we are born as sinners is wrong or misinturpreted reason being there was no “great fall”. and last but not least @seeker, I kinda see what your saying what is the greatly superior “chosen ones” I’m curious?

[Hidden]
Anonymous (130) (@) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

@aizen, Well the omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god`s official spokesmen of course.

[Hidden]
Aizen (21) (@aizen) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

@seeker, Cool gotcha! which belief is this or is this a conclusion of a truth you found?

[Hidden]
Anonymous (130) (@) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

@aizen, i thought.

[Hidden]
Aizen (21) (@aizen) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

@seeker, Nice okey cool!

[Hidden]
D.I. (26) (@thekingofthenorth) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

the religious control is not going to like this.. probably should not stir anything up

[Hidden]
RomanRite (0) (@bookofjames) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

None of your propositions acually imply their conclusions… How does the nonexistence of Adam and Eve = the nonexistence of sin?

[Hidden]
Anonymous (130) (@) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

@bookofjames, what he meant was that if Adam and Eve didn`t exist then the human race isn`t tainted with the original sin. But as adam said, the truth of Christianity is shrouded in metaphor and symbolism, this literal Christianity is meant as opium to subdue the masses.

[Hidden]
Tine (366) (@tine) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

@aizen,

sin is simply a destructive act, even without that specific title, the destructive acts will still carry their own consequences.

[Hidden]
Anonymous (130) (@) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

@tine, the word belongs to a specific context.

[Hidden]
RomanRite (0) (@bookofjames) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

Yes, but even in the case of original sin, can we theorize no other way for original sin (innate flaw in all human species) to come about? If we can, then still no connection.

[Hidden]
Anonymous (130) (@) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

@bookofjames, not innate flaw, disobedience. What are you talking about? If the people who allegedly did something weren`t then how is the deed still done?

[Hidden]
Aizen (21) (@aizen) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

@bookofjames, Seeker does have a point, all I’m proposing is all sin started with the fall of adam and eve as the Bible says, however, if Adam and Eve and the events that are said to occur did not happen then we are not born into sin. Now this is not to say that there is not good or bad in the world by every means there are this is actually what I am studying now along with why there is suffering. Its been an interesting study so far! and by the way @seeker, @tine, @thekingofthenorth, @orla0magenta, @adamd, your all awesome for commenting and giving me your thoughts thank you!!!! Keep them coming!

[Hidden]
Anonymous (130) (@) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

@bookofjames, the mainstream church disproves evolution and instead proposes creationism which begins with the creation of adam and eve who brought about the original sin. If creationism is disproven then the validity of the whole notion of original sin collapses because the context is false.

[Hidden]
Tine (366) (@tine) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

@seeker,

At its core, sin as contextualized by Christianity is simply a list of motivators that lead to, in my opinion, most all destructive acts, but, we are still only talking about something that is an observable cause/effect, meaning, that even if the term sin is removed, these actions would still occur, sin is just a term humans associated to a certain type of action to create a mental anchor that make the issue more important for individuals in general,

basically, despite his argument that the original sin never occurred in the garden, my counter is that humans would have started the process anyway, that sin is simply describing something that happens anyway, the difference being that to term actions as sin the individual is attempting to overcome his base, animal impulses, he is creating a mental anchor to increase the relevance

[Hidden]
Anonymous (272) (@) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

Maybe not take it so literally? I’m definately not a Christian, but come on man! You speak about it in absolutes. There are no absolutes in life.

I go out and fuck a hooker from the tittay bar, my girlfriend doesn’t find out, I still feel guilt. In my mind I’ve still sinned. Of course there is no ultimate truth, but as long as your not a sociopath, that shit’s real. Sin in the sense that I was dishonest to myself/someone else et cetera.

[Hidden]
Anonymous (272) (@) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

@seeker, Well, as an nonbeliever, I wouldn’t say rebelling against authority.

From the example I used above, even when there is no higher power than myself (in my eyes), I can still feel what christians call “sin”. I just choose not to call it “sin”.

[Hidden]
Anonymous (130) (@) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

@tine, obviously destructive behavior would still occur, but sin isn`t “simply” destructive behavior, sin is the tendency towards disobedience inherited from the original weaklings which angered boss, sin implies guilt, lifelong fucking guilt! We were talking about sin in the context of mainstream christianity.

[Hidden]
Tine (366) (@tine) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

@seeker,

See, I think that is more a reflection of your perspective, I don’t see it that way, even with a Christian background

[Hidden]
Anonymous (130) (@) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

@ballsackturtles23, sin in the context of christianity, we aren`t talking about the same fucking thing…sorry.

[Hidden]
Tine (366) (@tine) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

@seeker,

And if others see it that way, I would tell them the same

[Hidden]
RomanRite (0) (@bookofjames) 8 years, 9 months ago ago

“Sin” and “Original Sin” are different concepts. What we are talking about is “original sin.” If we are taking the story metaphorically, as stated above, it is a metaphor for an innate flaw (ie. acting in ways contrary to ones belief system) in the human species. I dont know how you all put names when you respond but which “mainstream church” teaches against the possibility of evolutionism? Also, studying the nature of suffering sounds fantastic. I vote for desire as the cause.

[Hidden]
Viewing 24 reply threads
load more