Adam's Sin -- Independence and Revellion

[Foxaèr]

If living is sinning, then I don't want to be religiously dead.

[chimp3]

In examining the nature of Adam’s sin we discover that aside from rebellion there is also a certain kind of independence. We must not lose sight here of free will. On the one hand, the tree of life implies a sense of dependence. Man at that time did not possess God’s nature, but had he partaken of the fruit of the tree of life he could have secured God’s life; man could have reached his summit—possessing the very life of God. This is dependence. On the other hand, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil suggests independence because man strived by the exercise of his will for the knowledge not promised, for something not accorded him by God. His rebellion declared his independence. By rebelling he did not need to depend upon God. Furthermore, his seeking the knowledge of good and evil also showed his independence, for he was not satisfied with what God had bestowed already. The difference between the spiritual and the soulish is crystal clear. The spiritual depends utterly upon God, fully satisfied with what God has given; the soulish steers clear of God and covets what God has not conferred, especially “knowledge.” Independence is a special mark of the soulish. That thing—no matter how good, even worshiping God—is unquestionably of the soul if it does not require complete trust in God and instead calls for reliance upon one’s own strength. The tree of life cannot grow within us together with the tree of knowledge. Rebellion and independence explain every sin committed by both sinners and saints.

In a nutjob shell : Adam never existed. Australopithicus, Home erectus, CroMagnon.

[Harry Nevis]

In examining the nature of Adam’s sin we discover that aside from rebellion there is also a certain kind of independence. We must not lose sight here of free will. On the one hand, the tree of life implies a sense of dependence. Man at that time did not possess God’s nature, but had he partaken of the fruit of the tree of life he could have secured God’s life; man could have reached his summit—possessing the very life of God. This is dependence. On the other hand, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil suggests independence because man strived by the exercise of his will for the knowledge not promised, for something not accorded him by God. His rebellion declared his independence. By rebelling he did not need to depend upon God. Furthermore, his seeking the knowledge of good and evil also showed his independence, for he was not satisfied with what God had bestowed already. The difference between the spiritual and the soulish is crystal clear. The spiritual depends utterly upon God, fully satisfied with what God has given; the soulish steers clear of God and covets what God has not conferred, especially “knowledge.” Independence is a special mark of the soulish. That thing—no matter how good, even worshiping God—is unquestionably of the soul if it does not require complete trust in God and instead calls for reliance upon one’s own strength. The tree of life cannot grow within us together with the tree of knowledge. Rebellion and independence explain every sin committed by both sinners and saints.

Looks like "discover" is redefined as "made up shit".

[drfuzzy]

In examining the nature of Adam’s sin we discover that aside from rebellion there is also a certain kind of independence. We must not lose sight here of free will. On the one hand, the tree of life implies a sense of dependence. Man at that time did not possess God’s nature, but had he partaken of the fruit of the tree of life he could have secured God’s life; man could have reached his summit—possessing the very life of God. This is dependence. On the other hand, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil suggests independence because man strived by the exercise of his will for the knowledge not promised, for something not accorded him by God. His rebellion declared his independence. By rebelling he did not need to depend upon God. Furthermore, his seeking the knowledge of good and evil also showed his independence, for he was not satisfied with what God had bestowed already. The difference between the spiritual and the soulish is crystal clear. The spiritual depends utterly upon God, fully satisfied with what God has given; the soulish steers clear of God and covets what God has not conferred, especially “knowledge.” Independence is a special mark of the soulish. That thing—no matter how good, even worshiping God—is unquestionably of the soul if it does not require complete trust in God and instead calls for reliance upon one’s own strength. The tree of life cannot grow within us together with the tree of knowledge. Rebellion and independence explain every sin committed by both sinners and saints.

God never existed.  Adam never existed.  Science has clearly shown the latter.
Prove (with scientific studies and data, not fairy tales and psychobabble) that God exists.  Then have God show up and clearly state God's wishes and thoughts.  Any omniscient, omnipotent creature should not need humans to tell other humans what it wants.  -- And then have all of his "interpreters" disagree with each other.

[Fake Messiah]

You know story of Genesis is not just proof that Christianity is total bullshit but God himself as well. If God is a perfect being then whatever he creates must be perfect. If Adam is perfect then how could Adam have sinned? Regardless of how much free will he had, if he chose to sin he was not perfect. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.
How could Adam have rebelled if he was created perfect? Regardless of how much freedom he had, if Adam chose to rebel, that would clearly prove he was not perfect.

And then that whole notion that Christians invented that whole human kind is to be punished for what their "father" Adam did goes against Bible itself. For Deuteronomy 24:16 says " Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."

[chimp3]

In my book Eve ate of the tree of knowledge because she was fucking bored. Gardens are nice ...but...

[Succubus]

You know story of Genesis is not just proof that Christianity is total bullshit but God himself as well. If God is a perfect being then whatever he creates must be perfect. If Adam is perfect then how could Adam have sinned? Regardless of how much free will he had, if he chose to sin he was not perfect. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.
How could Adam have rebelled if he was created perfect? Regardless of how much freedom he had, if Adam chose to rebel, that would clearly prove he was not perfect.

And then that whole notion that Christians invented that whole human kind is to be punished for what their "father" Adam did goes against Bible itself. For Deuteronomy 24:16 says " Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."

I spotted the plot holes in the story when I was about six or seven years old. If god is omniscient the he must have known what those two soft bastards would do (Loads of zeros) years before he made them. And if he's omnipresent that means he watched them doing it. WHF?

"If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed."
George Carlin.

[Simon Moon]

Poor form.

Poor form.

...and even worse logic.

Plagiarizing (without attributions) is bad enough.

But plagiarising failed reasoning, as if it is not, is just plain moronic.

But what else it to be expected from InteresedUser? In his short time here, he hasn't exactly shown himself to be a critical thinker.

[Drich]

In examining the nature of Adam’s sin we discover that aside from rebellion there is also a certain kind of independence. We must not lose sight here of free will.

 On the one hand, the tree of life implies a sense of dependence. Man at that time did not possess God’s nature, but had he partaken of the fruit of the tree of life he could have secured God’s life; man could have reached his summit—possessing the very life of God.

wait a tick.. They were allowed to eat from any tree but the tree of knowledge, the tree of life was fair game. What makes you think they haven't yet already eaten from that tree? God said the day you eat from the tree of knowledge they would die. Who's to say they didn't that day? in that their immortality die. lest the eat from that tree again..

This is dependence. On the other hand, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil suggests independence because man strived by the exercise of his will for the knowledge not promised, for something not accorded him by God. His rebellion declared his independence. By rebelling he did not need to depend upon God.

Ah.. no. Look at how Satan approaches and who Satan approaches first. was Independence the implement used to tempt eve? He started by identifying the one curiousity the one thing forbidden in the garden.

 Imagine if day one you were placed in the garden and had full access to a place 2/3's the size of north america and filled with every wonder imaginable. Then God says dont do "x" here. Who cares right? you've got a whole rest of the world to discover! Now imagine a time where you've spent about 18 billion years (about what it took for the rest of the world out side of the garden to evolve or catch up) and you are doing everything eating everything till your bored with everything. Then Satan rolls up and asks about the one thing yet undiscovered... Something that was told would kill her but is now told it would not. For eve the prohibition was not in disobedience to God as an act of independance, for eve it was about dying if she even touched the fruit. Just look at how satan constructed the argument look at what he leads with, then wraps the whole idea in sugar by making her like God (Which means a whole new adventure/because God comes and goes from the garden) which is now becomming a prision.

Furthermore, his seeking the knowledge of good and evil also showed his independence, for he was not satisfied with what God had bestowed already.

Ha! No again!
Adam was in the back ground of all of this. Yes He was with Eve, but it he was in the back ground of this sales pitch. It was almost like an after though that Adam got to partake in this, as Eve clear takes the lead on the whole matter. How can I say this? because again before this point there is no knowledge of God and Evil. Only life and death. Once it was shown the death threat was not valid the prohibition was lifted. There was no plotting here, someone was sold something she wanted to hear and because her idea of death did not coincide with what God spoke about, she simply moved the goal posts based on what they understood.

The difference between the spiritual and the soulish is crystal clear. The spiritual depends utterly upon God, fully satisfied with what God has given; the soulish steers clear of God and covets what God has not conferred, especially “knowledge.” Independence is a special mark of the soulish. That thing—no matter how good, even worshiping God—is unquestionably of the soul if it does not require complete trust in God and instead calls for reliance upon one’s own strength. The tree of life cannot grow within us together with the tree of knowledge. Rebellion and independence explain every sin committed by both sinners and saints.

  where is any of this spelled out???

[Minimalist]

The same place that your bullshit is "spelled out" dripshit.  In that stupid fucking bible you all swear by.

Anyone can find anything they want in that thing.