Original Sin Coincidence?

[AndyF]

Not sure if I can convey this properly.

Is it remarkable that for a mortal species who is capable of making good and bad choices, that we would find the first bad choice being made in the first/second human being?

Let’s look at it from a different perspective. Assume the sin (ie:stigmatization) occurred in the third generation of Eve. Prior to this 80 people enjoyed the Garden of Eden and bliss. 120 years after Eve was created someone of her generation makes the wrong choice.

Now this person begets 3 children, and they marry from the generation of non-sinning mortals.

. Would only one person be cast out of the garden and also any of his later offspring? Would OS stigmatize only that generation from then on? In random mating, would only those who had Mitochondrial DNA linking them to the mother of the sinner be stigmatized?

You can see where randomness of events and who it involves doesn’t sit with the story, rather, it says it MUST happen this way IF they are indeed fallible. In the story as it is we are saying that it just happened that Eve was the person who made the wrong choice. Then again can you see the complexity of stigmatization if it occurred any other way?. Would OS be proportioned retroactively from then on.?

How could it have happened any other way. Man was created knowing full well he would make at least some error one day. The contigency plan was how to prepare for that event, and OS starting with the first generation is the most facile way to carry out the inevitable. When the choice was made makes all the difference.

Given we have choice and that could happen any time, I’m interested in your hypotheticals of how OS would be applied where the first sin occurred much later than it did.

Andy

 

[Benadam]

Not sure if I can convey this properly.

Is it remarkable that for a mortal species who is capable of making good and bad choices, that we would find the first bad choice being made in the first/second human being?

Let’s look at it from a different perspective. Assume the sin (ie:stigmatization) occurred in the third generation of Eve. Prior to this 80 people enjoyed the Garden of Eden and bliss. 120 years after Eve was created someone of her generation makes the wrong choice.

Now this person begets 3 children, and they marry from the generation of non-sinning mortals.

. Would only one person be cast out of the garden and also any of his later offspring? Would OS stigmatize only that generation from then on? In random mating, would only those who had Mitochondrial DNA linking them to the mother of the sinner be stigmatized?

You can see where randomness of events and who it involves doesn’t sit with the story, rather, it says it MUST happen this way IF they are indeed fallible. In the story as it is we are saying that it just happened that Eve was the person who made the wrong choice. Then again can you see the complexity of stigmatization if it occurred any other way?. Would OS be proportioned retroactively from then on.?

How could it have happened any other way. Man was created knowing full well he would make at least some error one day. The contigency plan was how to prepare for that event, and OS starting with the first generation is the most facile way to carry out the inevitable. When the choice was made makes all the difference.

Given we have choice and that could happen any time, I’m interested in your hypotheticals of how OS would be applied where the first sin occurred much later than it did.

Andy

Supposing that earthly life didn’t end in the seperation of body(earth) and soul (paradise/heaven)and that there were other humans, only the one who committed the sin would suffer that end of their earthly life. The lives of the others would end as God intended. Perhaps no longer willing to reproduce offspring in an environment where the powers of nature do not serve human life. No gravestones or bones to mark that they ever were.

 

[AndyF]

But

Supposing that earthly life didn’t end in the seperation of body(earth) and soul (paradise/heaven)and that there were other humans, only the one who committed the sin would suffer that end of their earthly life. The lives of the others would end as God intended. Perhaps no longer willing to reproduce offspring in an environment where the powers of nature do not serve human life. No gravestones or bones to mark that they ever were.

The body rejoins the soul to share in it’s reward. It is either made incorrupt has fitting a virtuous life, or made corrupt fitting a life of corruption.

Andy

 

[surritter]

Various theories have been bandied about as to what would have happened if Adam and Eve didn’t sin, but one of their great-grandchildren did.

To me it would set up two kinds of humans, those with original sin (those from the lineage of the great-grandkid who sinned) and those who remained stainless (from other branches of Adam/Eve that didn’t sin). But then if the stained/unstained marry each other, what happens?

You can see that this would kind of fall apart. Personally, I have no problem believing that Adam and Eve could have fallen. Any one of us would have done the same. That doesn’t mean that we were condemned from the start, but it shows how fragile we are and how much we need our loving Father!
:bowdown:

 

[codebilly]

Not sure if I can convey this properly.

Is it remarkable that for a mortal species who is capable of making good and bad choices, that we would find the first bad choice being made in the first/second human being?

Let’s look at it from a different perspective. Assume the sin (ie:stigmatization) occurred in the third generation of Eve. Prior to this 80 people enjoyed the Garden of Eden and bliss. 120 years after Eve was created someone of her generation makes the wrong choice.

Now this person begets 3 children, and they marry from the generation of non-sinning mortals.

. Would only one person be cast out of the garden and also any of his later offspring? Would OS stigmatize only that generation from then on? In random mating, would only those who had Mitochondrial DNA linking them to the mother of the sinner be stigmatized?

You can see where randomness of events and who it involves doesn’t sit with the story, rather, it says it MUST happen this way IF they are indeed fallible. In the story as it is we are saying that it just happened that Eve was the person who made the wrong choice. Then again can you see the complexity of stigmatization if it occurred any other way?. Would OS be proportioned retroactively from then on.?

How could it have happened any other way. Man was created knowing full well he would make at least some error one day. The contigency plan was how to prepare for that event, and OS starting with the first generation is the most facile way to carry out the inevitable. When the choice was made makes all the difference.

Given we have choice and that could happen any time, I’m interested in your hypotheticals of how OS would be applied where the first sin occurred much later than it did.

Andy

To understand “original sin” we must understand the “temptation”. The temptation was:

• “eat of this and ye shall be as gods” – Gen. 3:5

Therefore Adam and Eve desired to be a “god” independent of God Himself. That is, they desired to be their own god.

Now try to examine any sin in this context of origin-al sin. Even a toddler, at some point, will throw a tantrum if not getting its way. It may not be considered a grave sin, but rather a propensity for sin.

Another aspect of the temptation leading to original sin, is separation i.e. independence from God.

From a psychological perspective, this may be described as “ego” , or more appropriately, an ego that is self centered as opposed to God centered.

This I, me, mine, self acts independently of God in its actions and desires for sins. It is clear all sins are selfish acts.

Why are people born with “original sin” is difficult to answer.

One view, that may be considered “safe” and within the Church’s approved teachings is that Adam was a sort of supernatural man before the fall, and Eve was a supernatural woman.

Somehow we are heirs to their spiritual nature.

It is rather interesting, and I state this very carefully, that the story of the fall in eastern mythology (some branch of Hinduism) has the masculine part of the soul as:

Atman

and the femine

Jiva

Atman almost is a play on words of Atom (The greek for Adam) and it even means something like an “individual part”.

IN Hebrew, there are no vowels and Eve is actually HV (Eva)

almost cognate with Jiva.

The fall of Atman and Jiva, some as perfect supernatural beings, is the manifestation of the “I-sense” as delusion.

That is, that perfect beings fall from heave, from the “vain idea of an existence separate from God”.

 

[Benadam]

But

The body rejoins the soul to share in it’s reward. It is either made incorrupt has fitting a virtuous life, or made corrupt fitting a life of corruption.

Andy

Hi Andy,

I’m thinking that the body having perfectly served a soul that perfectly led to God would never suffer seperation but be granted freedom from any law that binds matter having fulfilled it’s purpose