Talk:Original sin

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Before I change it, why is "The woman", but "Adam". shouldn't it be "eve" and "adam" or "the woman", and "the man"... again, if it was intentional to show how low a human eve was that she doesn't even deserve a name here, that's cool. --WaitingforGodot 15:14, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

I believe it is. She needs to shut the hell up about apples and make him a sammich. --US-O11 insignia.svg Gen. S.T. Shrink GET TO THA CHOPPER 15:40, 25 July 2008 (EDT)


Most fundamentalist Christians and pastors I've known tend to hold that it's the *confession* of Christ that gets you your permanent Golden Ticket to the Pearly Gates, and that baptism is just sort of a symbol, a "Love ya, God" gesture. Mormons (the church I grew up in) *do* believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, but this is generally held to be heretical by most conservative Protestants, who are way into Solifidianism (salvation by faith alone) and see baptism as a "work". The fact that Mormons believe that good "works" are necessary for your Heaven Entrance Exams (HEE) was always held to be one of the main reasons they were going straight to the Lake of Fire, like in all those Jack Chick pamphlets I collected as a missionary. But I digress. Point is, for most real Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, baptism is really not a big deal. Baptists, oddly enough, seem to be some of the most vocal about Baptism not being all that necessary. You just gotta get "saved". The ones I met in the Bible Belt as a missionary talked about this incessantly.


'it was Satan who actually told the truth - because they did not die' is disputed because its a matter of interpretation on what is meant by death. You might say that Adam and Eve and everything else began to die as a result of that one act, they just did not fall over instantly Hamster 16:59, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Well, according to the King James he said: "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". Now you can play around with what is meant by "in the day" or "die", but the most obvious interpretation is "You will die on the same day that you eat it." However, given that the myth does not have them dying, then Christians are obliged to do some clintonesque re-defining of the words to get themselves out of a tight corner. Unfortunately for biblical literalists they are obliged to interpret the words non-literally if they wish to accept the passage.--BobNot Jim 22:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


I have cut the following section:

Cut begins

Original Sin vs. science

The theology of the first man (Adam) transmitting his sin to all his descendants is invalidated by theories of speciation in which the line of mankind never "bottlenecks" into only two parents. In evolution the predecessor species of mankind blended gradually into Homo sapiens, such that (in retrospect) there were never fewer than 2000 individuals of our species. In other words, evolution never flipped a switch where a single "ape" mother suddenly give birth to a single "human" baby.

If we are saved from the penalty of sin (which is said to be death), this implies that death is a punishment rather than something which naturally emerged in order to make finite resources available for new generations of life. Even the Catholic Church, which officially sanctioned inquiry into evolution in 1992, refuses to accept the final consequence of descent with variation, which is to moot Original Sin and therefore nullify the need for a Savior.

cut ends

I have cut this because:

  • an attempt to analyse prehistoric myths in terms of science is always bound to be absurd.
  • it is theoretically possible to have a bottleneck of two individuals, so the statement is factually incorrect.
  • the second paragraph is somewhat incomprehensible.

--BobNot Jim 17:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Talking snake[edit]

Since this was pre-Tower of Babel, all animals presumably spoke Adamic. Even from a rational theistic perspective (mine), humans may have spoke "the language of the wolves" before forming civilization. -Lilfut (talk)

Actually, I reckon that entire snake paragraph is a bit rambling... I might take a look at it when I get home. Scarlet A.pngsshole 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You really believe there was a talking snake in history? And you say your view is rationalistic? Of course the snake talks, it's a character in a story; the same way yhwh is; that's why he [yhwh] doesn't know everything Scherben (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Eating the apple[edit]

One interpretation I read states that eating the apple gave knowledge of what death is, and the realisation by Adam and Eve that there will be a time after which they will no longer exist.

God created mankind in his-her--other gender's image - so would know that they would in due course eat the apple, and created the snake in such a manner that it could take on Satan and successfully tempt A & E. God is one peculiar bunny. (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Text reads, that it was the serpent who actually told the truth - because they did not die
Comment: they did not die instantly, but they did die eventually. This is undeniable. nobsViva la Revolución! 03:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Except that God had said they would die that day, which they did not. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily; if they were created to live enternally, and "in that day" they disobeyed, "ye shall surely die" could have occurred 900 years later. nobsViva la Revolución! 01:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
That is the stupidest claim that I have ever heard. The Christian god knew what a day was, he created it. It's one cycle of day and night. Clear as day (*rimshot*). --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Well first off, it's not the Christian God, it's the Jewish God (or more accuratgely, the Hebrew God). Some might say even the Islamic God, too. Secondly, allowing for translation and mistranslation, and proper English grammar, it does not say, "on that day." Pretty fucking straight forward English language. In that day the relationship between me & thee will change. "Ye shall be separated, and/or cut off, from me". Pretty fucking clear understandable English any fucking idiot with limited powers of reason can see. nobsViva la Revolución! 03:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
In the sci-fi / fantasy subculture they call what you're doing "fanwanking." --Stickie (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Is rejecting original sin really a problem?[edit]

I'm not so positive about the claim that it's a big problem for liberal Christians if they reject the doctrine of original sin because of its impact on the story of the crucifixion. Here's why: anecdotally, liberal Christians don't see the crucifixion as the purpose of Jesus's life, and tend to be highly critical of the focus by fundamentalist/Catholic types on the crucifixion as the ultimate point of Christianity. If your perspective on the crucifixion is that it was a stupid mistake and a parable about what happens when you challenge the status quo too much, and you see the real message of the gospels as being about the life and deeds of Jesus as opposed to some weird torture-porn, the doctrine of original sin is really superfluous. User:ORavenhurst (gibber) 16:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

So... why the crucifixion then? And the Bible certainly seems to make a pretty big deal out of it.
The point is, fundamentalist Christianity is stupid because it's externally inconsistent. Liberal Christianity is stupid because it's internally inconsistent (well, so is fundamentalism, but to a lesser degree). An American Fallacy (super crazy fun time!) 16:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
HOw is liberal xinaity internally inconsistent. They do not hold the bible as "THE WORD OF GOD!!!!!!" but as 'the word of god'. A good book to be followed, written by man "inspired" by god, but as full of error, the times, and simple interpretation as any other writing of man. Kinda hard to be inconsistent when you are starting from the point that "it's pretty much, kinda, sorta the truth and important--but there's some really good bits!"Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 17:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The crucifixion because people killed Jesus. The Bible makes a big deal about it because emphasizing the crucifixion and the doctrine of original sin provided easy levers for social control. Justifications are pretty easy to come by when your starting point is "this book is good but imperfect and has been subject to many revisions intended to make it a useful political tool" User:ORavenhurst (gibber) 17:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I guess my question for Nihilist, there, is that liberal Christians don't necessarily even accept Jesus as god, cause some actually read history of the bible. I think once you step over the line from "literalism" to anything else, the range of things you can accept is huge. not that this has to do with the article. It's Friday, I don't want to do my timesheets, so I'm sitting here chatting. Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 17:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, this is why literalism makes the most internal sense. I'm going to sound like a fundie preacher, but once you stop accepting that the Bible is the exact word of god and was meant to be taking literally, you can twist it to anything you like (although, again, literalists still do that, but at least they pretend not to). It's all a bunch of bullshit anyways. An American Fallacy (super crazy fun time!) 23:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── How does literalism make internal sense when the document repeatedly contradicts itself? User:ORavenhurst (gibber) 15:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

They apply massive levels of cognitive dissonance. ТyComplaints 15:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
If you ignore that part, it makes more internal sense. GodothasArrived (super crazy fun time!) 21:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, sarcasm aside, I think it's important to remember what was brought up in the Saloon (salon? my text says both are words...shit). anyhow, I really think most people (not scholars, priests, pastors, etc., but the lay people going to church and running off to witness) have no idea what the bible REALLY says. When I tell them that its rather unclear if it's actually a crime to rape someone, so long as you are willing to marry them; that the crime is having sex with another man's property and not a crime against the woman; remind them that the ten commandments worries more about how you treat your parents than your spouse, or children and that it does nto mention rape at all, most Christians are surprised. "that's in there?" Same with slavery, beating your child, not wearing mixed fibers (as if god would care what you wore...), and a host of other minutia that makes their god look rather petty and "greek god" like. Usually, I get quite a reaction, and "show me". then lots and lots of questions. I suspect that's a good thing? Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 21:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
One problem I have found among those that do read it is the rate at which they read it. I was instructed to read exactly 10 pages a day, and didn't remember much about it until I started reading it for leisure. So while they read the bible, it was more so they could say "Yay I read the bible" than actually studying it. Тycommunications wire 21:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I remember reading pretty much the whole Bible, and my god, it was so fucking hard to get through the Old Testament -- none of it makes any goddamn sense, and it's so fucking tedious. I'm kind of ashamed that I didn't stop believing for so long. GodothasArrived (super crazy fun time!) 22:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Symbolism of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil[edit]

Is the section "Symbolism of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" meant to be parody, somebody's personal opinion or what?--Weirdstuff (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Absurdities and Contradictions[edit]

The section Absurdities and Contradictions begins with the statement: "Note that this list applies to common Christian beliefs. Many of these ideas were alien to the Jewish writers of Genesis."

Exactly what this disclaimer is supposed to add to the article is beyond me, so I deleted it. It was replaced by User:Noir LeSable. Could anybody explain why this disclaimer is meant to add to the article? If there is no response I will remove it again in 24 hours. --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's another: Intro says in the opening words, "Original sin is the cynical doctrine that humanity is cursed".
In short, this is laughable. Christian doctrine clearly states that humanity is not cursed, rather the earth was cursed because of Adam's disobedience (see: RationalWiki:Annotated_Bible/Genesis#Genesis_3:17. Humanity is not cursed because God loves humanity (unsure what Judaic doctrine is on this verse).
All this misinformation in the opening sentence does is highlight the stereotype that godless atheists are ignorant to facts. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 20:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
That's hairsplitting. Original sin is the doctrine that the sin of Adam and Eve has consequences for all of their descendants. The consequences in question can only be alleviated by supernatural means. This fits the generally understood meaning of the word "curse."
Besides, if you curse the thing Adam requires to live, that's still a curse on Adam indirectly (and Eve's curse is specifically on her, I notice you forgot subservience and pain in childbirth). It's like saying "I didn't steal from you, I stole from your house." King Skeleton (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it's a gross error in the opening sentence. And Judaic doctrine agrees, RationalWiki:Annotated_Bible/Psalm#Psalm_8:6, "all things under his feet", whereas Gen. 3:17 clearly states, "cursed is the ground for thy sakes". This ain't rocket science. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 00:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not. If you curse the ground so someone has to work harder, you're cursing that person to work harder indirectly. Like I said (and you ignored), it's like trying to make a determination between robbing you and robbing your house. And you're still ignoring Eve and all women being cursed directly.
In addition, it's almost certainly referring to all humanity being cast out as sinners and condemned to eternal fire because of Adam and Eve's victimless crime, not about the curse on the land to make Adam work harder. King Skeleton (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
If you say so. But any orthodox Christian or Jew will read that opening line and say, "this is bullshit and a gross misrepresentation of the faith". And again, which you ignore, adds to the stereotype of atheists and religious critics as ill-informed ignorant dissemblers of fact. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 02:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
No, they're likely to understand that it's describing the fall of man in terms of God condemning Adam and Eve to death by casting them out of Eden, and then cursing all their descendants with death and hellfire forever because of their victimless crime (which is a common skeptical reading of it). The whole point of the skeptical readings tends to be showing that the Biblical God is clueless and abusive, so obviously this won't gel with the Christian doctrine that He is wise, kindly and loving. The fact that the Bible describes God putting a slightly different curse on Adam and Eve doesn't necessarily mean that's what the intro is talking about. King Skeleton (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Yabutt the scepticism you describe is directly contradicted by the texts that sceptics purport to critique. More supporting texts can be cited, including the infamous John 3:16 to blow your theory out of the water. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 02:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you not understand the concept of interpretation? "The bible says God is good so that settles it" is the textbook example of a pisspoor circular argument. Also, I must take issue with your claims about "Christian doctrine" since you don't seem to understand the difference between doctrine and scripture. Also, most moderate Christians and Jews do not believe the Fall describes a literal event, the intro strictly addresses the fundamentalist-literalist conception of Genesis as a documentary account of real events. King Skeleton (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not using the "God is good" argument at all. My Muslim friend tells me "God is love" is bullshit. I'm saying God cursed the ground for man's sake. God put everything in subjection under man's feet. That's all. That says it all. God so loved the world (Kosmos; here 'Kosmos' refers to humanity) that he was willing to make a supreme sacrifice to mend the rift and forgive Man's joining himself to Satan's rebellion. That's it. A perfectly logical argument that makes more sense to children, average adults, educated adults, retarded people, etc., then the contorted illogic this article puts forward in its opening sentence. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 04:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
What the fuck are you taking about? God gives man dominion over the animals in Gen 1:28. The curse on the ground in 3:17 is for it to bring forth weeds and give Adam a difficult harvest. I was wondering what the hell you thought that Psalm had to do with anything. King Skeleton (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
In fact, God does remake the covenant with man from Genesis 1:28, but it's with Noah in Genesis 9:1-3, not with Adam in 3:17. This is because Genesis 1 is a summary which focuses on the creation itself, while 2-9 is a fable explaining the origins of some other things using the same framework.
The point remains that most moderate Christians and Jews are not bothered by apparent issues with the Genesis account because they do not believe it refers to a literal event, largely because God comes across as having absolutely no idea what He's doing in it, and also because modern society no longer regards punishing people for the sins of their ancestors as just.
The "curse" referred to in the introductions, as is clear from the context of the rest of the paragraphs, is being judged as sinners for Adam's and Eve's victimless crime, and thus subject to eternal damnation. The fact that the Bible uses the word "curse" to refer to something God does in Genesis does not mean that's automatically what the article is talking about. Your comical misreading of Gen 3:17 just shows you have no grasp of basic reading comprehension. King Skeleton (talk) 06:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The link I posted in the justification was from a Jewish Rabbi on a Judaism Outreach website who stated that Original Sin is an entirely Christian concept.
The term “original sin” is unknown to the Jewish Scriptures, and the Church’s teachings on this doctrine are antithetical to the core principles of the Torah and its prophets.
If you want more sources, here:
  • We human beings do not die because of their sin, we die because Gd made Death a part of life from the moment of Creation. There may be such a thing as The Original Mistake, but there is no such thing as Original Sin. -Rabbi Stewart Federow
  • While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon mankind on account of Adam's sin, the dominant view by far was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful. -Issues in Jewish Ethics
  • Jews do not believe in the doctrine of original sin. This is a Christian belief based on Paul’s statement, “Therefore just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). The doctrine was fully developed by the church father, Augustine of Hippo (354-430). -Gerard Sigal, Jews for Judaism
And so on. Thanks. Noir LeSable (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Augustine in Civitas Dei, that is correct. Now, does Jewish teaching claim God cursed Adam (and thus humanity), or the ground as Gen. 3:17 says? nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 00:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Gen 3:17 doesn't say that. Aside from all the other bizarre claims you've made, you're using the wrong meaning of the word "sake." The meaning in 3:17 is as in "because of you," not "for you." In fact most modern translations phrase it as "cursed is the ground because of you." And the effect of the curse is for Adam to toil and suffer hardship in bringing in the harvest. And that's not what the article is talking about anyway. King Skeleton (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, keep piling on the crap...bottomline -- you just said "cursed is the ground because of you" which, as anyone can see, is not God putting a curse on humanity -- as the opeing sentence of this article states. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 19:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
If you were actually capable of fucking reading you would then read the rest of the curse, which explains the effects this curse will have on Adam himself. And that that is not what the fucking article is talking about. King Skeleton (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, there's a word for this...non sequitur -- that which does not follow. God distinctly NOT cursing humanity, but rather the ground (earth, or planet) translates into God cursing humanity. Got it now. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 21:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Cursing Eve with pain in childbirth and subservience and Adam with a harsh harvest and toil is cursing them. I notice you haven't bothered dealing with Eve, does she not count as part of humanity now? And again, since you're apparently illiterate, that is not the curse the article is talking about. Do you really think focusing entirely on what God cursed to bring sorrow and toil to Adam matters? King Skeleton (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fuck yah. Prior to Adam's sin, human's were vegetarians and lived in harmony with animals (the lion laid down with the lamb). Since Adam's sin, God clothed Adam and Eve's sin with a blood sacrifice, i.e., they became meat eaters and it's been a dog-eat-dog world ever since. Now man's crap stinks to high heaven cause it's loaded with digested animal parts, gets in the ground water, and pollutes the planet. Anthropomorphic global warming, likewise, is the result of man's sin. MAN FUCKED UP THE WHOLE WORLD WITH SIN. Geez, is this so hard to understand? nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 00:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, and God couldn't have just not created the tree in the first place? Or not created the serpent? Or forgiven Adam's children because they had never personally done anything at all?
Compare Yahweh with Samsung: Samsung creates a phone,it catches fire, its recalled. An 'improved' model is released, it catches fire. The whole line is recalled, Samsung says 'Sorry, we fucked up.' Yahweh creates Man, he catches fire and is recalled [Noah's Flood], and Yahweh creates an improved version [the sons of the 'holy' man Noah]. They catch fire and Yahweh prepares to recall the whole line [Apocalypse]. But... no apology from Yahweh fro his defective product, the product itself is blamed for its faults, rather than Yahweh's design, Yahweh's choice of materials, and Yahweh's manufacturing, although he has infinite wisdom for the design, infinite time to choose the best materials, and infinite power to create a perfect product.
It is amusing that you're so defensive about a tale that directly relates mindless obedience with purity, though. Says a lot. King Skeleton (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
So if you hate life so much, or are ungrateful for receiving it, why not slit your wrists? Oh yah, cause there is good and evil on the earth and killing yourself in considered by most (jihadis & atheists excepted) as evil. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 00:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything? King Skeleton (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The Eden and Babel myths are sort of fascinating because they add up to God being quite, quite worried about being surpassed by humanity. God's rationale for sending Adam and Eve out of Eden was "If they eat the fruit of eternal life there'll be no difference between them and me" and the Babel thing was him going "Holy crap, look at what they're doing. If they keep on having the same language and cooperating, nothing will be impossible for them." It's probably for this reason that the Preacher graphic novel resonated so much with me. --Maxus (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, Pentateuch God is a lot closer to the Greek imagining of a deity as fallible and limited It's also implied in Exodus that the Egyptian gods exist and have power but aren't as powerful as YHWH, hence them being able to replicate the early plagues.King Skeleton (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

White privilege[edit]

White privilege has been compared to original sin; white people are born with a history of intolerance, ill-gained profit, etc. and is like a sin against the collective that they are born with. User000name (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Ain't the original sin people being guilty because some mythical guy coupla thousand years ago ate an unknown and unkosher magical fruit (the bible says "pri" (fruit), not "tapuach haadamah" (apple)), while "white privilege" is society, institutions and so on giving whites preferential treatment? The comparison simply doesn't fly.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC) 23:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it either.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
"has been compared" - but by whom? Ah, wait, I see it's been done so by people who say "Cultural Marxism" with a straight face. Here, for instance. Perhaps we could write about this somewhere. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 06:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Another interpretation of the snake[edit]

'Adam and Eve' realize that they are different from 'animals in general' - they can speak, plan ahead, and manipulate the environment to their advantage - while the animals just live and communicate among themselves to no long term result.

The snake is 'a necessary agent' for the situation to arise in which people will worship God - rather than strolling around the Garden of Eden and 'passing the time of day' with God when they meet.

And why didn't #the snake# eat the apple of good and evil (and the fruit of eternal life)? (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Good point about the snake not eating the apple himself — especially considering the fact that (according to certain literalists) the snake's entire diet quite literally consisted of fruit prior to the fall from grace.
This, since there was no death — and thus, no food chain — until woman's sin turned the kumba-yah Garden of Eden into the biblical equivalent of that shitty Japanese island from Battle Royal. Also the t-rex' only had big teeth to open coconuts with end of story Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
'A group of people around the campfire at the end of the day' and a snake goes by. Says little child at the 'asking innumerable unanswerable questions' stage - how come we can speak and I have to do all these tasks (and the ground is hard) and learning the scriptures by heard (or to read them) is difficult (especially when I want to play) and the snake does not talk and does not have to do hard things? And why doesn't God (who is good and created us etc) make the animals do our work for us? And did Adam and Eve (who brought this tribe together longer ago than the grandparent's grandparents knew) actually know God?
And so the tribal bard told a story which answered all the questions. (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The more I see the bullshit present in the Bible, the I appreciate to have become skeptic. Thanks for opening so many eyes. -- (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


In the article about Fundies, it's mentioned that Christ's sacrifice to free mankind of original sin (just to be sent to Hell if you're not a believer) has ethic issues. What issues especifically? -the only I can think of is why God simply does not forgive us-. --Panzerfaust (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You mean aside from consenting to some guy from from bronze age being tortured to death? — Unsigned, by: GrammarCommie / talk / contribs 01:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Not bronze age but later, and he lasted little compared to an equivalent guy who withstood being lanced thirteen times with a weapon designed to kill gods and thirteen hours after having been similarly nailed (plus what's not described). Still, the only ethical issue I can think of is why God, especially an omnibenevolent and omnipotent one, simply does not forgive us from the start -the tree thing is full of problems as described in the article- and has to send someone to die (actually for nothing, as the alternative is still hell), especially being omnipotent and I was wondering if there was more as proportionality, etc. --Panzerfaust (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Names vs. descriptions[edit]

The article as of December 2019 says, "In some senses Adam (who, unlike "the woman", has a name) ..."

Old Biblical names are all also words. Yes, the first woman was named "woman," but "Adam" means "clay" (and Seth, "appointed," and Cain, "created one," and, oh, Michael, "like god," and Noah, "rest"). Why decide that "Eve" isn't really a name, but "Adam" is? Vivisectionist (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)