Originally posted by Arcana
The idea of the passage as that man disobeyed God in attempt to be like God by gaining the knowledge of good or evil. It does not matter to me how it happened or if their was even a "Garden of Eden". What matters is the point behind the story.Man rebels against God and says "We wish to govern own lives." God says "ok you do that, but be prepared for the consequences."
I still don't understand how they can make a wrong choice before they know what's right and wrong. It seems like a Catch-22 to me.
"To find out what's right and wrong, you have to eat from the tree - but, if you eat from the tree, that's wrong, and I will punish all your children as sinners for it."
Originally posted by Trickster
I still don't understand how they can make a wrong choice before they know what's right and wrong. It seems like a Catch-22 to me.
"To find out what's right and wrong, you have to eat from the tree - but, if you eat from the tree, that's wrong, and I will punish all your children as sinners for it."
Originally posted by Trickster
Don't worry, it wasn't directed at you anyway. I was kinda hoping for someone who does believe the Bible to give me a reply.
In my religion, LDS (Mormon), we believe that Adam and Eve transgressed. We view a distinction between the term transgression and the term sin. Adam and Eve transgressed, they did not sin.
Transgress
1 To go beyond or over (a limit or boundary); exceed or overstep: "to make sure that her characters didn't transgress the parameters of ordinariness" (Ron Rosenbaum).
2 To act in violation of (the law, for example).
Sin
1 A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2 Theology
a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
b. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
3 Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.
To transgress does not require an understanding, and is not necessarily deliberate. A sin requires knowledge of wrong. Was eating of the fruit a moral or religious law? I don't know, it might have been, it might not. Did Adam and Eve have religion? They could not have had morals yet.
Now this isn't a mainstream Christian view, this is the Mormon view.
Originally posted by Alliance
The point is, not everyone interprets sentances the same way. Sh*tting out quotes doesnt do anything. You never provide analysis to prove a point. Regardless of rather its "fact" or not.
* you just missed it, admit you dropped the ball, pal... you just come out and "sh*t out" comments you think right... 😉
* the fact is, we're talking about the "original sin", if it's true or not... i stated, according to the Bible - which most Christians, and even those who claims to be Christians, use as a basis of faith - the "original sin" is not Biblical... 🙄
* i think you're just pissed off, because when it comes to Bible, you can't refute... you just question the authenticity of the Bible, saying it's revised by a thousand times, blah blah blah... 😛
Thank you, Regret.
Peejayd, Alliance is right - you don't prove anything by just quoting the Bible. There are a lot of contradictions in there, and it's up to the reader to decide which takes precendence. Your opinion is not necessarily correct.
And putting smilies into your post doesn't make it look more authentic, nor somehow make what you're writing more truthful.
Originally posted by Trickster
And putting smilies into your post doesn't make it look more authentic, nor somehow make what you're writing more truthful.
Nor do the asterisks before each paragraph, the elipses in place of proper punctuation, and the complete absence of capitalization. I would recommend that he learn to use the quote function as well.
Originally posted by peejayd
* you just missed it, admit you dropped the ball, pal... you just come out and "sh*t out" comments you think right... 😉* the fact is, we're talking about the "original sin", if it's true or not... i stated, according to the Bible - which most Christians, and even those who claims to be Christians, use as a basis of faith - the "original sin" is not Biblical... 🙄
* i think you're just pissed off, because when it comes to Bible, you can't refute... you just question the authenticity of the Bible, saying it's revised by a thousand times, blah blah blah... 😛
Perhaps in the original sin instance my criticism was not as grounded, but my point still stands. Cite the Bible all you want, but don't expect us to always interpret your passages the same way.
I can't refute what you say, becuase you rarely say anything. and arguing with a book is only entertainting for so long....it rarely argues back 😉
* the problem is, where did the belief of "original sin" came from? yes, it came from the Bible blatantly misinterpreted... so i go out here, and "sh*t out" verses to prove their belief wrong... if you don't care much about the Bible, i don't have anything to do with you, pal... i just giving my side of the story in which you always claim to be illogical... bah! 😉
I simplt siad that then you should state your interpretation.
You are clearly not getting my point. The bible is onyl important to Christians and only answering to CHirsitans is fairly narrow view on this forum. I have made my position on the use of bible quotes cleary repeatedly...you have read where I stand, but apparently refuse to accept my position.
* i know where you're position is, the fact is, what's your point of arguing something in the Biblical aspect? the argument of the belief of the "original sin" lies within the boundaries of those who believe in the Bible because the belief clearly came from the Bible, only misinterpreted... i can't believe you're still posting here... am i right? 😉