Anti-religious question

[TheComebackKid]

Well, because the concept of sexuality and having children coming from sin is a rather important distinction, don't you think? If they were able to have children before the Fall, then hypothetically they could have populated the earth with immortal offspring. I was just curious how some would address this issue. Conversely, if they were asexual, then there would have been no lineage and thus no Bible to tell. I understand that most consider the actual garden of God/Eden to be a mythological place, and some think of it as otherworldly - so Adam and Eve being banished on Earth as a punishment would mean this certainly wasn't the first choice for us.

I ask because these kinds of questions leave open certain holes. The very foundation of Christianity is based on sin. The concept of family, having children, having husband/wife and her being a servant to the man came from the first sin. Without the Fall, there is no Noah or Abraham, and certainly no Jesus.

I guess I'm at a loss as to why sex and reproduction between Adam and Eve is a sin or an "issue". Where is the basis biblically to declare family a result of original sin?

 

[BJJ_Rage]

That was a good thread, I was surprised by the responses of people suggesting that aliens had to exist as a matter of mathematics, and as such, believed in them.

hundreds of thousands of years ago, men thought that the people around 100 miles were the only ones of the planet, a couple of hundreds of years later, men thought that people 1000 miles were the only ones in the planet, a little later people of X continent thought they were the only ones of the planet, a little later thought earth was the only planet of the universe, is the natural progression, considering that earth is as small as a grain of sand in the middle of the beach in universe terms, it would pretty naive to think that earth is the only planet to have life in it What should surprise people is the incredible ammount of people that actually think that.

Weather aliens have or not visited earth is another matter, but it should be obvious that there is life outside earth.

 

[Winnie The Foo]

alright, back from a night out with the fam.

As I'm sure we're all on the same page regarding religion, where are we at regarding stoves?

Yea I went back and thought about it some more. And it appears stoves play a greater role in morality than I previously thought.

 

[LilMountain]

I guess I'm at a loss as to why sex and reproduction between Adam and Eve is a sin or an "issue". Where is the basis biblically to declare family a result of original sin?

I've only be half-following, but he made that point clear in this post and several following;

If Eve never sinned, and humans were indeed to be immortal, then how would this planet sustain the over population that would have occurred over the last thousands of years? If they were really asexual before sin, then there would have never been any lineage. No Cain, Abel, Seth, Noah, or Abraham, and essentially no story to tell in the Bible. There are different interpretations of pre-Fall and post-Fall sexuality according to Genesis, but it boils down to the need of sin and the Fall for the story of the Bible to come to fruition.

Some say that there was no real sexuality before the Fall, and that the very concept of marriage, husband/wife, family, having kids, etc. comes from the first sin. If that were the case, then there would indeed be no Bible at all. Others say that there was sexuality pre-Fall, and that the "shamefulness" that Adam and Eve felt regarding their bodies was actually shame before God, not each other. However, if this were the case, then the planet would ultimately overpopulate to the point of catastrophe, and the resources and wildlife would have suffered much earlier in the timeline. Either way, it seems like an interesting catch 22. Maybe God would have made more space and resources for us as saw fit, seeing as how it was Paradise and we didn't sin. But then comes the idea that eventually, SOMEONE would have sinned. Some kid, probably Adam/Eve's first, would have done something that all kids do, and it'd be considered sinful.

After the Fall, God essentially has the first legal trial, via Adam and Eve vs. God, and He sets forth some rules/conditions -

(a) I will greatly multiply your pain [labor] in childbearing;
(b) in pain [labor] you shall bring forth children,
(c) yet your desire shall be for your husband,
(d) and he shall rule over you.

The B is what makes it seem like there would be no childbearing before hand, and that this whole husband/wife concept is a result of the sin.

Anyways, it's all very interesting stuff. But to think it all happened because someone ate a piece of fruit, like *that's* the first original sin - not murder, theft, or anything like that, but eating fruit when told not to. That's the very essence of free will in itself, but it damned all mankind to death and painful births of kids.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Yea I went back and thought about it some more. And it appears stoves play a greater role in morality than I previously thought.

Well you know what they say, you can lead a horse to a stove but you can't make it cook.

*shrugs*

 

[Thurisaz]

^^The point is all wrong, however.

If Eve never sinned, and humans were indeed to be immortal, then how would this planet sustain the over population that would have occurred over the last thousands of years?

Since pretty much everything was different before the Fall, there's no reason to suppose procreation was too. I assume that when the world was full, no more children would have come or that those who were ready would be called to God, making room for more (like Enoch, for example). Considering that everything we know about this world revolves around death, it's really hard to make up reasonable speculations about the conditions before it.

Others say that there was sexuality pre-Fall, and that the "shamefulness" that Adam and Eve felt regarding their bodies was actually shame before God, not each other. However, if this were the case, then the planet would ultimately overpopulate to the point of catastrophe, and the resources and wildlife would have suffered much earlier in the timeline.

As I said above, you make too much about suggestions that are based on the world before the fall being essentially the same as it is now. That is a false assumption, and therefore a bad base for speculation.

Either way, it seems like an interesting catch 22.

It would, if it didn't rest on stuff we know to be incorrect.

Maybe God would have made more space and resources for us as saw fit, seeing as how it was Paradise and we didn't sin. But then comes the idea that eventually, SOMEONE would have sinned. Some kid, probably Adam/Eve's first, would have done something that all kids do, and it'd be considered sinful.

Again the assumption that the world and the people in it were the same now as they were back then. This is not the case.

After the Fall, God essentially has the first legal trial, via Adam and Eve vs. God, and He sets forth some rules/conditions -

(a) I will greatly multiply your pain [labor] in childbearing;
(b) in pain [labor] you shall bring forth children,
(c) yet your desire shall be for your husband,
(d) and he shall rule over you.

The B is what makes it seem like there would be no childbearing before hand, and that this whole husband/wife concept is a result of the sin.

No. In Genesis 1:28 God says "Be fruitful and multiply", prior to the Fall. There would be no sense to that if there was no ability to multiply. Therefore your deduction from B is wrong and so is everything else you try to build on it.

Anyways, it's all very interesting stuff. But to think it all happened because someone ate a piece of fruit, like *that's* the first original sin - not murder, theft, or anything like that, but eating fruit when told not to. That's the very essence of free will in itself, but it damned all mankind to death and painful births of kids.

You don't understand the gist of it. The first sin was to choose to follow the Serpent instead of the Lord.

 

[Winnie The Foo]

Well you know what they say, you can lead a horse to a stove but you can't make it cook.

*shrugs*

Lol.

 

[7437]

True.

Also, congrats on the silver belt!

I hadnt even noticed, i usually post from a cell. thx

 

[The Diplomat]

Since pretty much everything was different before the Fall, there's no reason to suppose procreation was too. I assume that when the world was full, no more children would have come or that those who were ready would be called to God, making room for more (like Enoch, for example). Considering that everything we know about this world revolves around death, it's really hard to make up reasonable speculations about the conditions before it.


As I said above, you make too much about suggestions that are based on the world before the fall being essentially the same as it is now. That is a false assumption, and therefore a bad base for speculation.

Aye, I mentioned in a later post that some say Eden was an otherworldly place, not of this Earth, and that pre Fall could have been completely different to after. That God would some how fix everything as it went along, as opposed to leaving it to rot. That's one way to fix the alternative reality's holes. It goes back to the God works in mysterious ways mantra, though.

No. In Genesis 1:28 God says "Be fruitful and multiply", prior to the Fall. There would be no sense to that if there was no ability to multiply. Therefore your deduction from B is wrong and so is everything else you try to build on it.

Would you disagree that the concept of family was born from sin? I understand it goes back to Eden being paradise and a mythological perfect place, and we can't compare anything, but do you think there would have been the same lineage from Adam and Eve if there was never any sin? The stories of Cain/Abel, Noah's flood, and Jesus certainly would have never happened if sin was non existent. The concept of Hell and even Christianity would have been irrelevant.

You don't understand the gist of it. The first sin was to choose to follow the Serpent instead of the Lord.

This is why I ask these questions, because there are different interpretations and different theories. So the original sin was gullibility/naivete? Or just the direct defiance of God?

In any case, isn't it interesting that God created something that is imperfect? The perfect spiritual being was not able to create something as equally perfect, even if we are supposed to be made in his likeness. It goes back to destiny/fate vs. free will and coincidence. If God is all knowing, and can see in every dimension (time included), then he certainly knew that humans would have disobeyed him, and caused enough death and sin on the planet to eventually wipe them all out and start over again with Noah. He would have seen the eventual need to send a part of himself in Jesus to try and heal the planet through Christianity. And he would have seen Satan trying to deceive everyone along the way, no? Conversely, if the point was for erratic, unpredictable free will, and demanding obedience regardless, then God himself was unaware of our ability to "go the other way", or be persuaded against his wishes.

 

[djacobox372]

hundreds of thousands of years ago, men thought that the people around 100 miles were the only ones of the planet, a couple of hundreds of years later, men thought that people 1000 miles were the only ones in the planet, a little later people of X continent thought they were the only ones of the planet, a little later thought earth was the only planet of the universe, is the natural progression, considering that earth is as small as a grain of sand in the middle of the beach in universe terms, it would pretty naive to think that earth is the only planet to have life in it What should surprise people is the incredible ammount of people that actually think that.

Weather aliens have or not visited earth is another matter, but it should be obvious that there is life outside earth.

Other intelligent life in our galaxy his highly unlikely due to simple mathematical reasoning--see: fermi's paradox.

 

[BJJ_Rage]

Other intelligent life in our galaxy his highly unlikely due to simple mathematical reasoning--see: fermi's paradox.

may be, although our galaxy is just a tiny dot in the universe....

 

[andnowweknow]

Yea I went back and thought about it some more. And it appears stoves play a greater role in morality than I previously thought.

that opens up the door to refrigeration systems and washer and dryer units as well. Once the stove arrived on the scene, this got incredibly complex. I wish God would just come down and explain all this so we can all breath a little easier.

 

[Thurisaz]

Would you disagree that the concept of family was born from sin?

Yes.

I understand it goes back to Eden being paradise and a mythological perfect place, and we can't compare anything, but do you think there would have been the same lineage from Adam and Eve if there was never any sin?

Same lineage? Maybe, in a sense. Not being tainted by sin would've led to something completely different from what we can easily conceive.

The stories of Cain/Abel, Noah's flood, and Jesus certainly would have never happened if sin was non existent. The concept of Hell and even Christianity would have been irrelevant.

True. One does not need a savior if one does not sin et al.

This is why I ask these questions, because there are different interpretations and different theories. So the original sin was gullibility/naivete? Or just the direct defiance of God?

The first may have influenced the latter, but sin was then, as it is now, the choice to oppose God's will.

In any case, isn't it interesting that God created something that is imperfect?

He didn't, unless you consider freedom of choice imperfect in itself. That would lead to several rather interesting conclusions.

The perfect spiritual being was not able to create something as equally perfect, even if we are supposed to be made in his likeness.

He didn't try to clone Himself. He made what He wanted to make.

If God is all knowing, and can see in every dimension (time included), then he certainly knew that humans would have disobeyed him, and caused enough death and sin on the planet to eventually wipe them all out and start over again with Noah.

I don't subscribe to God's omniscience. The concept, when combined with creation, renders freedom of choice null. Therefore I believe God is voliscient - knows everything He wants to know - and leaves the choices open. Of course, when talking about time, we must remember that it is a concept that applies to the material world. God is outside it, which leaves us conceptually unarmed, so to speak. We simply do not know how God and time relate. Imagine a character in a game trying to understand how the programmer conceives time in-game, and you might get an idea of the difficulty involved.

Conversely, if the point was for erratic, unpredictable free will, and demanding obedience regardless, then God himself was unaware of our ability to "go the other way", or be persuaded against his wishes.

Unaware of the ability to make free choices? No. Unaware that Adam and Eve would use that freedom to turn away from Him? Might've been.

 

[anomynous]

I'm tired of repeating myself.

I've come to the realization that you probably feel like you're repeating yourself because the assertion "philosophy is not science" holds some signficance for you. For me, absent a good deal of unpacking which is likely to result in some surprising realizations, it's a trivial and uninteresting statement. A discussion that aims to restate that assertion under various slightly differing guises is one that holds no interest for me, and you apparently have no interest in a discussion that subjects that assertion to serious scrutiny. So we really have no basis for dialog. Which is why I'm not putting further effort into it. Adios, live long and prosper.

 

[7437]

Other intelligent life in our galaxy his highly unlikely due to simple mathematical reasoning--see: fermi's paradox.

The Fermi paradox says that life is highly probable due to mathematical reasoning. The paradox is that there is absolutely no real evidence

 

[Andy Capp]

I've come to the realization that you probably feel like you're repeating yourself because the assertion "philosophy is not science" holds some signficance for you. For me, absent a good deal of unpacking which is likely to result in some surprising realizations, it's a trivial and uninteresting statement. A discussion that aims to restate that assertion under various slightly differing guises is one that holds no interest for me, and you apparently have no interest in a discussion that subjects that assertion to serious scrutiny. So we really have no basis for dialog. Which is why I'm not putting further effort into it. Adios, live long and prosper.

Now you're just being a twit because you have no rebuttal. I stopped posting in this thread 2 days ago. I consider the question in the OP asked and answered. And I agree, the OP topic is not particularly interesting, hence why I dropped it until you chose to reply with this bs. As I said before, if one wants to start another thread discussing the influence of philosophy on science and vice versa I might have been interested in your thoughts (before this post) and I might contribute some of my own but they aren't relevant here. And no, there is no basis for dialogue on that one point because absolutely fucking no, philosophy is not science.

 

[BJJ_Rage]

The Fermi paradox says that life is highly probable due to mathematical reasoning. The paradox is that there is absolutely no real evidence

This.

 

[unclegrick]

Very profound TS. I was just pondering this the other day. Wherever there have been human beings throughout history, there is religion. No matter how remote or isolated the people. The drive is so strong that otherwise intelligent people suspend their logic and "believe". One of my smartest friends is sort of in a cult it's amazing how strong this drive is.

Kind of like a boy who wants to have sex. He really doesn't want to have a baby but the reproductive drive is so strong that he'll go out every night till 3am in desperate search for poon. Seems like a waste of time, but like religion the drive is overpowering.

It makes sense that since this drive is so prevalent in humanity, that even atheists are not immune. It's hard wired in us. Just read an article about Norwegians being very atheist but having a growing fear of ghosts.

Oh, and let's take a step back 50 years ago. How much of science was correct, and how much was incorrect? We have faith in science as the religious have faith in dieties. It's a way of understanding the world that usually evolve slower than the unfolding reality.

And there's the yoga class I just took...I'm guessing even atheists are religious and don't even know it. I don't really know how to define "religious" but it should encompass a faith in information provided by authority figures.