Original Sin

Page 3 of 5 [ 74 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,154
Location: temperate zone

06 Apr 2012, 8:10 pm

shrox wrote:

If all are directly descended from Adam and Eve, they why aren't we all Jewish? There appears to be an actual gene associated with being "ethnically" Jewish.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48937817.html

Too bad we dont have an emoticon for a dope slap!

Earth to Shrox

Adam and Eve PREDATED Abraham!

A+E 's children went out and "founded many nations".

It wasnt until two thousand years after A+E that Abraham founded the Jewish lineage.

BTW, he also founded the Arab line as well. The Jews through his wife, and the Arabs through his slave mistress.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Apr 2012, 8:17 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

shrox wrote:

If all are directly descended from Adam and Eve, they why aren't we all Jewish? There appears to be an actual gene associated with being "ethnically" Jewish.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48937817.html

Earth to Shrox

Adam and Eve PREDATED Abraham!

A+E 's children went out and "founded many nations".

It wasnt until thousand years after A+E that Abraham founded the Jewish lineage.

BTW, he also founded the Arab line as well. The Jews through his wife, and the Arabs through his slave mistress.

According to Rabinic tradition Hagar (who was Sarah's servant) was properly married to Abraham.

ruveyn

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,154
Location: temperate zone

06 Apr 2012, 8:26 pm

ruveyn wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

shrox wrote:

If all are directly descended from Adam and Eve, they why aren't we all Jewish? There appears to be an actual gene associated with being "ethnically" Jewish.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48937817.html

According to Rabinic tradition Hagar (who was Sarah's servant) was properly married to Abraham.

ruveyn

And the three of them together also founded the Jerry Springer Show!

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

06 Apr 2012, 8:59 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

shrox wrote:

If all are directly descended from Adam and Eve, they why aren't we all Jewish? There appears to be an actual gene associated with being "ethnically" Jewish.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48937817.html

OK, doh! on that one.

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

06 Apr 2012, 9:13 pm

ruveyn wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

shrox wrote:

If all are directly descended from Adam and Eve, they why aren't we all Jewish? There appears to be an actual gene associated with being "ethnically" Jewish.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48937817.html

According to Rabinic tradition Hagar (who was Sarah's servant) was properly married to Abraham.

ruveyn

Abraham didn't wait for the women God wanted him to be with and because he didn't wait that is what gave birth to the arab lineage Abrahams first son ismael would go on to start the religion Islam.

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

07 Apr 2012, 8:47 am

shrox wrote:

Niniel wrote:

TallyMan wrote:

Christians who are ignorant of evolution believe that everyone descended from Adam and Eve. However, the question believers always ignore is where did those other women come from that Cane / Abel hitched up with?

Adam and Eve had more children, and Cain and Abel mated with their sisters. We all come from incest, according to the bible that is.

No there was no incest.

The Garden was a divinely created area on an existing, evolved Earth. Adam and Eve were perfect humans (skin color an non-issue), their children married evolved men and women.

If you take any stock in Jubilees

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/4.htm

Jubilees 4:9 wrote:

And Cain took Âwân his sister to be his wife and she bare him Enoch at the close of the fourth jubilee.

Jubilees 4:11 wrote:

And in the fifth week of the fifth jubilee, Seth took Azûrâ his sister to be his wife, and in the fourth (year of the sixth week) she bare him Enos.

Adam and Eve's sons were marrying their sisters.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,154
Location: temperate zone

07 Apr 2012, 9:19 am

ArrantPariah wrote:

shrox wrote:

Niniel wrote:

TallyMan wrote:

Adam and Eve had more children, and Cain and Abel mated with their sisters. We all come from incest, according to the bible that is.

If you take any stock in Jubilees

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/4.htm

Jubilees 4:9 wrote:

And Cain took Âwân his sister to be his wife and she bare him Enoch at the close of the fourth jubilee.

Jubilees 4:11 wrote:

And in the fifth week of the fifth jubilee, Seth took Azûrâ his sister to be his wife, and in the fourth (year of the sixth week) she bare him Enos.

Adam and Eve's sons were marrying their sisters.

Yuck!

Cash__
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Nov 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,390
Location: Missouri

07 Apr 2012, 10:53 am

No, I don't believe in original sin. Belief in original sin presupposes I believe in the whole adam and eve story and that all humanity descended from them, which I don't.

blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

07 Apr 2012, 12:40 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

ArrantPariah wrote:

shrox wrote:

Niniel wrote:

TallyMan wrote:

Adam and Eve had more children, and Cain and Abel mated with their sisters. We all come from incest, according to the bible that is.

If you take any stock in Jubilees

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/4.htm

Jubilees 4:9 wrote:

And Cain took Âwân his sister to be his wife and she bare him Enoch at the close of the fourth jubilee.

Jubilees 4:11 wrote:

And in the fifth week of the fifth jubilee, Seth took Azûrâ his sister to be his wife, and in the fourth (year of the sixth week) she bare him Enos.

Adam and Eve's sons were marrying their sisters.

Yuck!

I think is hot.

blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

07 Apr 2012, 12:50 pm

shrox wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

blunnet wrote:

shrox wrote:

Where Is that in scripture?

Nowhere.

It was made up out of whole cloth.

ruveyn

It's a more logical explanation than "incest was OK for while..."

"Murder wasn't "OK for while", theft was not "OK for a while", lying was not "OK for a while".

You would have to have any scriptural reference interpreted (a formal theological interpretation) in the way that supports your idea or any literature reference to support it, otherwise you would be just making s**t up to get around the idea of incest.

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

07 Apr 2012, 1:46 pm

blunnet wrote:

shrox wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

blunnet wrote:

shrox wrote:

Where Is that in scripture?

Nowhere.

It was made up out of whole cloth.

ruveyn

It's a more logical explanation than "incest was OK for while..."

"Murder wasn't "OK for while", theft was not "OK for a while", lying was not "OK for a while".

Not really, I am trying to fit the unchanging holiness of God into the premise, that's all.

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

07 Apr 2012, 2:19 pm

Their is nothing orginal about sin. A sin is an act that violates a known moral rule. That's all it is.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,154
Location: temperate zone

07 Apr 2012, 5:26 pm

Cash__ wrote:

No, I don't believe in original sin. Belief in original sin presupposes I believe in the whole adam and eve story and that all humanity descended from them, which I don't.

Well thats the real question.

How can you be a christian, and not be a science rejecting fundie?

If you go along with all this newfangled Darwin stuff then presumably you wouldnt be able to believe in the litereal account of genisis- and the two lovers and the talking snake.

But if you loose adam and eve you loose original sin. And as I understand it - Original SIn is the keystone to the edifice of christianity.

So how do all of you non fundie christians square that?

How do you embrace 'the modern synthesis" in science, and stay Christian?

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

07 Apr 2012, 5:28 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

Cash__ wrote:

No, I don't believe in original sin. Belief in original sin presupposes I believe in the whole adam and eve story and that all humanity descended from them, which I don't.

I am a christian but I am not a science rejecting fundie because I dislike fundies oh so very much.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,154
Location: temperate zone

07 Apr 2012, 5:47 pm

blunnet wrote:

shrox wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

blunnet wrote:

shrox wrote:

Where Is that in scripture?

Nowhere.

It was made up out of whole cloth.

ruveyn

It's a more logical explanation than "incest was OK for while..."

"Murder wasn't "OK for while", theft was not "OK for a while", lying was not "OK for a while".

The problem is not Shrox's theology.
It is his history.
If you're claiming that God changed his mind at some point - and declared incest to be a new sin when it wasnt a sin before- then that is a radical interpretation. And you would have the burden of proof for that -not someone questioning that assertion.

The problem is not his theology, but his history.

Hes claiming that both Darwin and the Fundies are correct.
The earth is five billion years old, humans branched off trom the apes a few million years ago, and then.. six thousand years ago two young lovers fell in with a talking snake- and messed it all up for us despite the fact that planet already had millions of humans of every race living in every continent outside of this garden place who couldnt have been effected by adam and eve and were already living lives of travail and mortality for a long time ( ie we were already being punished even before the sin).

Doesnt make sense.

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

08 Apr 2012, 6:51 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

blunnet wrote:

shrox wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

blunnet wrote:

shrox wrote:

Where Is that in scripture?

Nowhere.

It was made up out of whole cloth.

ruveyn

It's a more logical explanation than "incest was OK for while..."

"Murder wasn't "OK for while", theft was not "OK for a while", lying was not "OK for a while".

I wouldn't say I am claiming Darwin to "be correct", (other than in specialization and adaptation, he's generally right though) rather I am saying the idea of God's morality changing is incorrect. For the fundies to be correct, since no one knows how long Adam and Eve remained in the garden. And this is just my speculation about it all.

And I forgot the flood too.

Page 3 of 5 [ 74 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

Original Sin Post Reply New Topic

Original Sin