Original Sin: A Choice We Never Had 🐍🍎

[@vigilance3109]

I spent nearly 40 years as a christian and once I researched that 1-archeological evidence is practically non existent, 2-the dating of the torah brings it to a helenistic age, not a early bronze age work, 3-the characters and stories of the tanakh are taken from earlier cuneiform/greek 4-jesus and his 12 apostles borrow a lot of similar practices of the jewsih sect, the essenes. The abrahamic faith just totally crumbles upon so many things.

[@SamuelDevis89]

I need to get Josh Bowen onto the show at some point to push into the archaeology side!

[@Crocalu]

There are plenty of commentaries on how humanity sinned originally, such as the serpent intentionally confusing Eve by incorrectly paraphrasing and misinterpreting God's warning. Eve was too innocent to realise the deception taking place. A discussion on sin is incomplete without closely analysing the presence of the snake. Regarding original sin affecting us now: children are not held accountable for their sins, however at some point children grow up and gain enough knowledge to consciously 'go along' with humanitys fallen state.

[@SamuelDevis89]

This doesn't answer my main thesis - there was never a time in actual history for humans to cause original sin to manifest itself through us.

[@Crocalu]

​@@SamuelDevis89I haven't seen you present any substantial arguments for that thesis. Swap out God for Truth for a moment - you are saying humanity never had the opportunity to embrace the Truth and after that (partially) depart from it? I doubt anyone could ever argue that definitively

[@SamuelDevis89]

I have no idea why you need to swap out God for a capitalised version of truth. For Christianity to stand, we need to be at fault in regards to original and individual moral sin, I'm claiming we can't be at fault for original sin. My evidence is presented in the video and thus you’d need to tell me when the thread was cut to refute my claim that we aren't at blame.

[@Crocalu]

Selecting from random explanations offered by strangers, rather than consulting theologians and thinking through these issues independently, is just setting yourself up to only debate that which you think you can refute. And even in that scenario, your arguments aren't watertight: for example near the end, premise 3 about friendship lacks the fullness of the true reason. 1) To reject God is to reject the truth that orders reality 2) God and (individual) humans persist in maintaining some kind of friendship throughout history. So clearly this is not about a full rejection - some part in us still always longs for God.

[@SamuelDevis89]

You're asserting that God orders reality without first proving this to be correct. You can assert whatever you want to back up your claim that God is foundational, but that doesn't make it so.