I believe Michel said a few points back that God is not subject to the paradoxes we consider.

I stumbled on to a video a few days ago that raises an interesting point, involving a paradox for humans, not God.

The Christian God sent Jesus to forgive us of our sins if we accept Jesus. That only makes sense if sin exists in the Jewish/Christian sense, following on original sin.

So, why did we disobey God with the eating of the fruit of knowledge? Because we (Adam and Eve) were sinful? Weren't we originally innocent? So where did that rebellious nature/sinfulness come from if we were originally innocent? Eating the fruit was the result of the sin of rebelling which caused us to be sinful creatures?

I think it goes like this (according to the bible). Before we ate the apple, we lacked self awareness and we basically lived like animals. An animal is not sinful because it lacks the self awareness to differentiate between right or wrong, good or evil. An animal just does things because his nature tells him to do it. If an animal kills another creature, we don't see its evil because we know its in the nature of the animal to kill other creatures. So in that sense, we were innocent, because we lacked the self awareness to differentiate between right and wrong.

After we ate the apple, we gained self awareness and with that also the knowledge to differentiate between right or wrong. That is also why, after we ate the apple in the story, we were suddenly ashamed of our nakedness.

Anyways, were we sinful for eating the apple? No, we disregarded Gods command, we got tricked by the snake, but in the end, we were animals, we couldn't comprehend the consequences of our actions and we didn't know that what we did was wrong because we couldn't differentiate between right and wrong. Its like a dog pooping on the carpet, you may have told the dog not to poop inside the house, but its not like the dog ever realizes that what it did was 'wrong'.

Now as for Jesus dying for our sins, I never really thought it meant he died for our 'original sin', more like he died for all our sins. What sins? Well, all of them, the many many sins we commit every day. I think sins there should be understood as 'general wrong doings' or 'unethical/immoral behavior'. And we do that a lot. When Jesus said 'he who is without sin cast the first stone' I don't think he referred specifically to the fact that our ancestors supposedly at the apple. I think he meant the fact that no one is perfectly ethical and moral all the time.

If you accept we are sinful, in the sense as we would find in the Old Testament, then we are sinful because of "Original" Sin.

The question, then, would be "How did we become sinners?" (If we never became sinful, we'd still be in Eden and Jesus would never have had to die for our sins.)

If we were innocent beforehand (as you put it, "we were innocent, because we lacked the self awareness to differentiate between right and wrong"), then we were without sin. Hence, we were not and could not be rebellious toward God.

we got tricked by the snake

So, it was not rebellion toward God.
Hence, eating the fruit was not caused by sin.

Yet, "we disregarded Gods command", thus, our sinful nature caused us to disregard God's command and sin, therefore causing our sinful nature.

This doesn't begin to even touch on the paradox of why God would put us to the test like that and allow the snake into the Garden of Eden. As you have claimed, being supernatural, paradoxes don't apply to the Christian God. But they sure do apply to us and our nature, do they not?

To me, the tale of the Garden of Eden is a warning to the ignorant not to try to apply critical thinking and knowledge towards debunking the entire bible. It is a warning not to do too much science and logic.

Also I never caught on to the dynamics of the "dying to compensate for our sins" thing. It doesn't seem to work since the dogma is everlasting damnation for a single mortal sin. Drat ! I never should have French kissed Mary Lynn in high school !!

Yet, "we disregarded Gods command", thus, our sinful nature caused us to disregard God's command and sin, therefore causing our sinful nature.

Thats circular logic. We sin because we are sinful and we are sinful because we sinned.

You assume here that disregarding Gods command was a sin and that we did it because we like sinning. But we couldn't sin before eating the apple because sinning requires active knowledge that what you are doing is 'wrong'. All we knew was that we weren't supposed to do it but we didn't know why or that doing it was somehow wrong.

Put it this way: Does a dog sin when it disregards your command not to poop on the carpet?

Also, it should be noted that the whole idea of the original sin is nowhere to be found in the bible. Its something theologians came up with several centuries after Christ, mostly as a critique on Dualist Gnostics.

This doesn't begin to even touch on the paradox of why God would put us to the test like that and allow the snake into the Garden of Eden. As you have claimed, being supernatural, paradoxes don't apply to the Christian God. But they sure do apply to us and our nature, do they not?

I am not entirely convinced that this is a paradox. Also, paradoxes don't apply to any all powerful God, be they the Christian one or not.

To me, the tale of the Garden of Eden is a warning to the ignorant not to try to apply critical thinking and knowledge towards debunking the entire bible. It is a warning not to do too much science and logic.

You do realize that the story existed before 'science' was ever a thing right?

And its a shame, I think its actually a beautiful allegorical story of how humanity evolved from animal incapable of self awareness to a being with the brains capable of introspection and critical thinking.

To me, the tale of the Garden of Eden is a warning to the ignorant not to try to apply critical thinking and knowledge towards debunking the entire bible. It is a warning not to do too much science and logic.

“The essence of Christianity is told us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the tree of knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just keep your mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions.”

Oh. My confirmation priest's favorite song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cXrEPNvRO8

Yet, "we disregarded Gods command", thus, our sinful nature caused us to disregard God's command and sin, therefore causing our sinful nature.

Thats circular logic. We sin because we are sinful and we are sinful because we sinned.

That's the point!

This doesn't begin to even touch on the paradox of why God would put us to the test like that and allow the snake into the Garden of Eden. As you have claimed, being supernatural, paradoxes don't apply to the Christian God. But they sure do apply to us and our nature, do they not?

I am not entirely convinced that this is a paradox. Also, paradoxes don't apply to any all powerful God, be they the Christian one or not.

As I already said, this is not being applied to any (G/g)od, it is a paradox applied to us and our natures.

Yet, "we disregarded Gods command", thus, our sinful nature caused us to disregard God's command and sin, therefore causing our sinful nature.

Thats circular logic. We sin because we are sinful and we are sinful because we sinned.

That's the point!

Exactly, GOD is circular logic! :)

---

To me, the tale of the Garden of Eden is a warning to the ignorant not to try to apply critical thinking and knowledge towards debunking the entire bible. It is a warning not to do too much science and logic.

You do realize that the story existed before 'science' was ever a thing right?

And its a shame, I think its actually a beautiful allegorical story of how humanity evolved from animal incapable of self awareness to a being with the brains capable of introspection and critical thinking.

And if we view it only as a beautiful allegory, essentially removing God from the "equation" ... ?

incapable of self awareness

my dogs are self-aware.

incapable of self awareness

my dogs are self-aware.

Our dog as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lu5kUEBVWo

And if we view it only as a beautiful allegory, essentially removing God from the "equation" ... ?

Well then it would make it just another story from the Bible that you shouldn't take as literal history.

And if we view it only as a beautiful allegory, essentially removing God from the "equation" ... ?

Well then it would make it just another story from the Bible that you shouldn't take as literal history.

So, I should worship the Jewish, or Christian, or any other God, because ... ?
Because humans can write beautiful allegorical stories ... ?
Or ... ?

“The essence of Christianity is...

Poenitentiam agite!


Or, at least so says Martin Luther.

And if we view it only as a beautiful allegory, essentially removing God from the "equation" ... ?

Well then it would make it just another story from the Bible that you shouldn't take as literal history.

So, I should worship the Jewish, or Christian, or any other God, because ... ?
Because humans can write beautiful allegorical stories ... ?
Or ... ?

You should worship whatever God you want because you feel you want to worship that God. I can't give you any reasons for why you should worship God and as far as I'm concerned, its a personal choice that you have to make for your own reasons.

Much of The Bible, as The Quran, is a History of a People.

Their wars (victories and defeats). Their Leadership (both good and bad). Their hopes and dreams. Their reasoning why good and bad happens (a Deity).

Not that much different from Ancient Greek/Roman History and Beliefs.

Both The Bible and The Quran, are excellent Historical References. Or at least as good, as other Secular References.

Uh no, they really aren't good historical references or sources. A lot of the stuff that happens in the bible very clearly did not happen in reality.

The problem with the bible is that even if there are a few stories somewhat historically accurate, they are placed between a lot of stories that are historically inaccurate or basically just fiction. And given that it deals with ancient times there is almost no way to distinguish between what stories are historically accurate and what stories are not.

And if we view it only as a beautiful allegory, essentially removing God from the "equation" ... ?

Well then it would make it just another story from the Bible that you shouldn't take as literal history.

So, I should worship the Jewish, or Christian, or any other God, because ... ?
Because humans can write beautiful allegorical stories ... ?
Or ... ?

You should worship whatever God you want because you feel you want to worship that God. I can't give you any reasons for why you should worship God and as far as I'm concerned, its a personal choice that you have to make for your own reasons.

You're evading the main point. If it's just a bunch of beautiful allegories, why should we believe there was anything divine behind it??

The Quran an excellent Historical Reference

I cannot find historical references in the Quran.
Only Abraham, Noha, Gabriel and perhaps other that is mentioned.
The Quran is so to speak an amendment to the Bible.
It's also a "perfect" book that's not need corrections according to muslims.
But imams are distoring the text of the Quran and do their own intepretations.
So now we have the daesh, talibans, boko haram and others!!!

Haraam is an Arabic term meaning sinful.
Boko Haram are very sinful.

Much of The Bible, as The Quran, is a History of a People.

Their wars (victories and defeats). Their Leadership (both good and bad). Their hopes and dreams. Their reasoning why good and bad happens (a Deity).

Not that much different from Ancient Greek/Roman History and Beliefs.

Both The Bible and The Quran, are excellent Historical References. Or at least as good, as other Secular References.

Uh no, they really aren't good historical references or sources. A lot of the stuff that happens in the bible very clearly did not happen in reality.

The problem with the bible is that even if there are a few stories somewhat historically accurate, they are placed between a lot of stories that are historically inaccurate or basically just fiction. And given that it deals with ancient times there is almost no way to distinguish between what stories are historically accurate and what stories are not.

Мишель...

I started my Post with the word "Much"

Apparently you skipped over that word. Or purposefully miss-characterized the thrust of my opinion.

Does ones opinion of my Post change. If one actually understands the meaning of the word "Much"?

If (believer) assert Much = All

---

You're evading the main point. If it's just a bunch of beautiful allegories, why should we believe there was anything divine behind it??

Divine behind what? Our self awareness?