Talk:Original sin

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Baptism

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.

White privilege

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. Bicycle^wheel 06:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Another interpretation of the snake

'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)? 86.146.99.46 (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. 31.51.114.86 (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. --93.191.139.7 (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Ethics

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

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)