Original Sin

[ZodiacKiller]

This is something I have always pondered. If before original sin evil did not exist, how did original sin occur. Theoretically evil would be what would have caused original sin. However, if evil does not exist because original sin has not yet been commit, how does evil then force original sin.
Or did evil already evist, and original sin cause human evil, as some say. Here you have the same problem. Why would human evil exist if original sin would both cause and be caused by human evil.
Try to keep your replies logic-based, philosophy-based, and science-based. I refuse to argue faith.

[Peace God]

ask the authors

[huginnmuninn]

humans are not the only ones who have the right to be evil as with any morality based question its the point of view of the person responding that chooses what he believes to be good and evil

[Sith Lord 13]

The way I've heard it explained, Original Sin is when evil entered humanity, not the universe. But yes, I do agree with the problems of the sin being passed down and with God's creation of the serpent in the first place.

[Sage]

Evil does not exist. It is a label we attach to things we don't approve of. Nothing more.

[darkwoon]

There is nothing like "Good vs Evil" in the original definition of the Christian God. For Christians, there is a single God, creator of the whole universe. Hence, he definitely must have created the serpent in the tree.

If you are a believer, you can for example imagine that it was a test sent by God. Or that, in fact, Evil and Good do not exist, but are relative views of the world. You can also put the hypothesis of evilness being fully part of God, just as goodness is, since he's supposedly an omnipotent being source of all creation.

Now, thereal explanation of why there is such a dualistic story in a strongly monotheist religion is because the stories told in Genesis are not original ones, but are revamped myths coming from the older Mesopotamian tradition. The story was written by a polytheist, hence the reason why it doesn't fit quite exactly within monotheism. It is quite logical that it got recycled in the Scriptures: the story was probably widespread, carries strong symbolism, and was (for the time) a good explanation of the origins of man. Even if it wasn't perfectly fitting, its lessons were considered too important to be ignored, and the text got included.

[huginnmuninn]

ok assuming that god does exist why would an all loving all powerful god make a whole species pay for one mans sin

[Sage]

ok assuming that god does exist why would an all loving all powerful god make a whole species pay for one mans sin

'Cause he's a dick.

[Azunite]

So, if i understood correctly you people are talking about "WHy do we carry the sin of Adam" something like that ?
In islam, we look from this perspective.
"Why should people be judged by another person's sin?"
Like your father is a criminal, then you were born, are you also a criminal?

[The Dark Lord]

ok assuming that god does exist why would an all loving all powerful god make a whole species pay for one mans sin

You are beginning from a false premise: God doesn't actually exist

[Azunite]

And who told you that Matt?

[The Dark Lord]

And who told you that Matt?

Its not up to me to prove my premise, its up to you to disprove it. I look forward to watching your inability to do so.

[Azunite]

No I asked in a neutral way because I also don't believe in Allah or God a lot

[The Dark Lord]

No I asked in a neutral way because I also don't believe in Allah or God a lot

Thats fine, although my point is still valid.

[Sith Lord 13]

Its not up to me to prove my premise, its up to you to disprove it. I look forward to watching your inability to do so.

It was accepted as an assumed premise for the basis of the conversation. You want to change the assumed basis, you need to prove, conclusively, that it is wrong.

Under a normal theological argument, you'd be right, but in this case, since it was stated as an assumed premise, the burden of proof falls to you.

[ZodiacKiller]

Thus far i see this as inconclusive. The only reasonable arguments lead me to beleive god does not exist (which I already beleive btw- so I may be biased), but I must note...

@Matty1 You were the one making the statement, "God does not exist". The others were only looking for evidence to that statement, not refuting it. Thus, it is your duty to defend that statement, lest you lose some credibility.

[The Joker]

And who told you that Matt?

I think he came to that conclusion after seeing no conclusive evidence of a God.