Do I sin because of Adam?

[catfish]

One of the better readings would suggest that the sinning - in some sinful thing -is not in the act, but in the knowledge of the act. The apple, and the tree, and the knowledge imparted was knowledge of the law, before which the authors imagined a world in which humans were running around blissfully in a garden completely ignorant of law, of good and evil - therefore not culpable. Sinning isn't so much doing, as it is knowing.

Just wondering if that "better" reading was perhaps not literal?
.

---

One of the better readings would suggest that the sinning - in some sinful thing -is not in the act, but in the knowledge of the act. The apple, and the tree, and the knowledge imparted was knowledge of the law, before which the authors imagined a world in which humans were running around blissfully in a garden completely ignorant of law, of good and evil - therefore not culpable. Sinning isn't so much doing, as it is knowing.

VERY interesting concept!

So evil is only evil if you KNOW it is evil. Otherwise, it is just another act with NO MORALITY ATTACHED TO IT!!

So actions, by themselves, are not morally wrong. It is the knowledge of those actions that makes them wrong.

Therefore, we can infer from that concept that there is no objective morality. All morality is SUBJECT to knowledge of evil.

Yup, and this is the reason why I logically reject the "original sin" doctrine. This same line of thinking is displayed in the Bible and it is even stated quite literally too.
.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, I don't know that I would extend it all that far (it's just a fairytale afterall) but it does seem like the folks who put it together were trying to tie a myth of a better place and more innocent time to the reality of their lives at whatever point it took that form as a narrative.

(none of the better readings are literal, because none of that shit happened Cat..lol)

[catfish]

Well, I don't know that I would extend it all that far (it's just a fairytale afterall) but it does seem like the folks who put it together were trying to tie a myth of a better place and more innocent time to the reality of their lives at whatever point it took that form as a narrative.

(none of the better readings are literal, because none of that shit happened Cat..lol)

I'm focussed on your choice of words there. "Better" implies more suited for a job or more desirable. So you recognise the non-literal reading as better yet choose the lesser reading from the choices as recognised by yourself.

This is very telling, that you can identify a "better" reading, insist on the opposite, then want me to give you a "key" so that you can choose what you yourself thinks is better. While the whole time you simply had that key misplaced (or purposely hidden).
.

[Minimalist]

Yep, a serpent with limbs.......who can speak.

For once, could you try some reading with the idea of metaphorical instead of being such a literal fucking fundie?

Are "Adam" and "Eve" metaphorical as well? Or do you simply pick and choose?

(Because without Adam and Eve there is no original sin, no fall of man, and no need for your fucking jesus to get his sorry ass crucified.)

Pick your next words carefully.

[catfish]

For once, could you try some reading with the idea of metaphorical instead of being such a literal fucking fundie?

Are "Adam" and "Eve" metaphorical as well? Or do you simply pick and choose?

(Because without Adam and Eve there is no original sin, no fall of man, and no need for your fucking jesus to get his sorry ass crucified.)

Pick your next words carefully.

Don't be such a dumbass and read the fucking thread before you spew your strawman shit from your mouth.
.

[Tonus]

Pick your next words carefully.

For a moment there, I thought you were channeling this guy:

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm focussed on your choice of words there. "Better" implies more suited for a job or more desirable. So you recognise the non-literal reading as better yet choose the lesser reading from the choices as recognised by yourself.

Yet what? Think about the question you just asked, and then come back with something coherent?

This is very telling, that you can identify a "better" reading, insist on the opposite, then want me to give you a "key" so that you can choose what you yourself thinks is better. While the whole time you simply had that key misplaced (or purposely hidden).
.

Who's insisting upon the opposite? Not that literal is some sort of opposite for metaphor in the first place. I don't require either reading. I prefer the one I gave because I find it more entertaining, more insightful of the people who dreamt it up etc- in short it's a better story in all of the ways I judge stories. Whether or not I think the reading I offered is better isn't going to tell me anything about whether or not the folks who put it to paper believed that it was an actual event (we've clearly got some now that believe this - I'd be surprised if there weren't some then). I'd suggest, that as a religious narrative which helps to establish the relationship, authority, and story of a god - the folks who developed it and kept it alive were likely to believe it was an actual event, as stated - otherwise they'd be drawing authority for their god from metaphor - or more plainly put - fiction.

Similarly, you, as a christian, are going to require that something -somewhere - be literal. I appreciate that this narrative isn't it, this isn't the place where you feel like falling on your sword (and I don't blame you because the story is pretty ridiculous, even as metaphor, what with the dragons and all).

[junkyardboy]

I was considering the xtian concept of sin and I suddenly thought, "Do I sin because of Adam?"

This brings up a few more questions: What would the world be like if Adam hadn't eaten the apple? Would there be evil in the world? If there was no evil, would lucifer still be god right-hand man? Would Jesus still have been born? Would bacon still be as tasty?

These are the questions that keep me up at night.

Ok, not really but it is an interesting thought.

no, you sin because you are self willed, like adam

[The Grand Nudger]

Even if i ignored a long litany of things that would give me posts and post of things to laugh about.....

that's like saying that some guy had homosexual sex -because- he had a penis.

Let me suggest what you might have been trying to communicate? That "self will" gives one the ability to sin.

[Mystic]

Sin is defined to be blameworthy.
A sin would not be blameworthy if we could not avoid the sin.
Therefore it's possible to avoid sins.
Therefore it's possible a human to be sinless.

If you reject the conclusion, it would mean sin is not always blameworthy or that it would be blameworthy even if we could not avoid it. Both of these are illogical. The conclusion necessarily follows.

There can be sinless humans or otherwise, sin doesn't exist.