Questions about the scope of original sin

[LastDemocratInSC]

In Genesis chapter 3 Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God's commands. As a result, Adam and Eve were cast from the Garden of Eden and we on Earth have been paying the price ever since in the form of physical afflictions, death, and a damaged relationship with God.

I have a question about the scope of original sin. The question has two parts with a few background comments about each part:

-------------

1 - Is the sin of Adam and Eve restricted to our planet?

We know through direct observation that planets are a common occurence in our galaxy, the Milky Way. We also know, through direct observation, that the universe is a big, big place with billions of galaxies. Given the mundane character of our galaxy it's logical to assume that planets are about as common in other galaxies as they are in our own. We do not know if there is life on any other planet (or satellite of a planet) in our galaxy or another. We do know that, given the number of planets that are likely to exist in our galaxy or another, that millions, or even billions of these might be earth-like and capable of harboring life similar to our own. It's also possible that planets whose environments we consider hostile to life may be capable of harboring a form of life that we don't understand. Never say never. All of this adds up to the possibility that life could exist elsewhere in the universe, but we don't know about this one way or another.

Given, also, that the Bible is the sole and complete Word of God, it must necessarily apply to the entire universe. This means that the sin of Adam and Eve, and the corresponding suffering and need for redemption, must also apply throughout the universe.

-------------

2 - What is the propagation rate of original sin?

Given that the speed of light places a constraint on the flow of information, and given that Adam and Eve committed their sin about 6000 years ago, it necessarily follows that the "sin wave" man created in Eden has reached only about 6000 light years from Earth. That's a tiny, tiny portion of our own galaxy, not to mention the distances to all the other galaxies. Does this mean that any potential civilizations beyond that radius are currently living a utopic life of everlasting health and peace?

What would happen if the "sin wave" reaches a utopic planet tomorrow? Would their lives suddenly fall into the same illness and ruin and death that we deal with each day? Would we have the same empathetic feelings toward them that we have for our own neighbors in trouble or be happy that they are now suffering with us and now have the opportunity to be saved by the blood of Jesus Christ so they can recover the perfect relationship with God that they had the day before?

[shain from kane]

1. For question 1, I would direct you to a novel by James Blish.

From the internets,

>>>"...A Case of Conscience (a winner of the 1959 Hugo award as well as 2004/1953 Retro-Hugo award for Best Novella), showed a Jesuit priest confronted with an alien intelligent race, apparently unfallen, which he eventually concludes must be a Satanic fabrication.">>>

[ToolTex]

2. Oh, you wont cross-up the fundy thumpers with this logic.

They deny anything existed more than about 6,000 years ago, and are certain that Earth is the center of the Universe, the only bastion of life, other than heaven and hell, of course.

[neoblues]

5. Probably right on the money...

about their beliefs. But doesn't that make their God seem rather... limited?

[azurnoir]

8. But, but

I thought we were carried across the sky on the back of a turtle. What happened to him?

[Ron Green]

3. Apples and oranges (or rather, apples and space apples)

The Garden of Eden story works for our planet, because that's where our species evolved and became conscious. And consciousness, IMHO, is what "original sin" is all about. It's about being separated from God, and the challenge is to use that very consciousness to find our way back.

The other planets, of which there must be many, will have to come up with their own allegories and stories and forms of wisdom to use whatever consciousness they have to find their paths back to the Unity. The burden of consciousness and free will is going to play out differently around the Universe, it would seem.

[neoblues]

4. Well, Obviously....

1. Sin must be universal, and apply to humans on all the planets we've colonized (including those that have since been de-populated by the Cylons).
1.a. The Bible, is only "our" sole copy of the Word... Since no rules can bind a God, he's free to have been telling the rest of the universe a whole other story.
2. God by definition must be the master of worm-holes, and besides, much like George Bush, "laws" don't apply to him so he's free to break them, therefore the propagation rate could easily instantly have involved the whole universe.
2.a. Then again, God doesn't even have to follow his own decisions; he's free to change his mind or even not apply the Original Sin from #1 to other utopic planets as he sees fit. Oh, the joys of being the Supreme Being.

Now then, as some people believe, perhpas we're just one of the experiments of God (wonder if they came out so, well, so perfectly?)... and heck, he's not even limited to our puny dimension (there being potentially an infinite number of other universes--occupying the very same space)(and whole other sets of universes/dimensions in the space beyond beyond), therefore, we should feel humble indeed before such a creator--and never dare question him. We should spend all our time groveling--I mean worshipping Him for deigning to have such direct and personal relationships with us ants. Maybe when our bodies have rotted away, He will tell us how the universe really is. (No wonder the dominionists want to bring about the end of times; all the sooner to get to know the Big Guy...)

Sorry if that all sounds a little sarcastic, but don't worry, if he exists, I'll get what's coming to me.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. Lately, sin has been pretty much concetrated in the

GOP. Need I say more?

[msongs]

7. just a fear tactic to buck up the priest class - no such thing

as original sin. It is a concept like heaven/hell, designed to keep ignorant people fearful so they will follow the priest classes and give their meager incomes to support the planet's churches.

when it comes to religion, it is ALL about power and money, the propaganda only serves those two interests.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

PS - feel free to support the religion of your choice, just don't try to impose it on non-interested people.
Gassing jews is NOT a family value.

[Proud_Democratt]

10. I'm with you, Msongs!!!!

"feel free to support the religion of your choice, just don't try to impose it on non-interested people.
Gassing jews is NOT a family value."

[LiberalPartisan]

9. This only works if you accept the doctrine of Original Sin

The notion of the Original Sin is a man made construct and there were dissenters to the idea of one great and damning original sin, most notably the Celtic monk Pelagius. Pelagius believed in the idea of free will and he denied the idea of Original Sin. He taught man is not born guilty due to Adam's sin but rather through the choices men make: Man is born innocent and becomes infused with sin. His teachings brough t forth the ire of Augustine of Hippo and ultimately Pelagius was excommunicated and labelled a heretic for his teachings.

[okasha]

11. According to traditional (Aquinas and thereabouts) theology. . . .

1 - Is the sin of Adam and Eve restricted to our planet?

It is restricted not only to our planet but to the human species. Earthworms are not fallen; neither are tigers or giraffes. The reason that fallen angels cannot be redeemed is that each angel is essentially a separate species--there is no representative of all angels who can do for them what Christ did for humans.

-------------

2 - What is the propagation rate of original sin?

About every twenty or twenty-five years, on average. :P

[ToolTex]

13. But worms eat apples, so how do you explain this?

A. Is there a Messianic worm to die for the original fallen worm?

B. If fallen angel species is different than regular angels, how many of each species can dance on the head of a pin?

C. If the two species interbreed are their offspring sterile?

D. When the two species interbreed are their offspring called Donkgels or Mulegels?

E. When the two species interbreed do their offspring have longer body parts; eg: ears, wings, penises, tails?

[okasha]

14. Explain what?

A. In traditional Christian theology, there is no such thing as a "fallen" worm. What do apples have to do with it? Or are you taking the Genesis story literally, fundy style? If you are, be advised that it does not mention apples.

B. The famous "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" question is actually more serious and more sensible than is generally understood. I has to do with whether angels are purely spiritual or at least partially corporeal beings. If the latter, then the number is determined by the relative sizes of the angels and the pin. If the former, then the answer is an infinite number, because they do not occupy physical space.

C, D, and E. Irrelvant. Each angel is created separately as a unique being; it has no parents and no offspring, hence no membership in a species beyond itself. As for body parts, you would need to resolve the pin question first.

I take it you didn't go to Catholic school. Sixth grade is about the time the smartasses in the class start asking those questions, along with wanting to know whether Adam had a bellybutton and where did Cain's wife come from. }(

[Evoman]

16. So why can't god just forgive em anyways

Why do angels have to have a christ to save them. Or human. Is god unable to forgive people without the bloody sacrafice of a godling?

[okasha]

17. According to some theologies,

that will eventually happen, including the forgiveness of Satan. The idea goes back to the pre-Nicene fathers, specifically St. Ignatius of Antioch if my uncaffeinated brain remembers correctly.

[trotsky]

21. Earthworms, tigers, and giraffes may not be "fallen,"

but they do indeed suffer from living in a "fallen" world.

[okasha]

23. Obviously.

And you can support that statement with or without reference to theology.

[trotsky]

25. Um...

"Fallen" only makes sense in reference to theology, and a particular theology at that.

[okasha]

27. Not necessarily.

"Fallen" is merely a synonym here for "corrupted," and you don't need to apply theology to come to the conclusion that that describes any number of human actions/situations/cultures. If you want to identify a "fall" with a particular non-theological event, then I submit that proto-humans' discovery of the power of weapons satisfies the condition.

[trotsky]

30. "Corrupted"?

And other animals can use weapons (throwing rocks, for instance) - are they corrupted and/or fallen?

No, there's no way you can use terms like those unless you resort to a theological frame of reference. Saying we're "corrupted" or "fallen" means that there was a time when we weren't. Humans are what they are - they never lived in a perfect, uncorrupted, unfallen state.

[okasha]

40. Uhm, trotsky. . ..

I'm not required to use language in a way that conforms with your prejudices.

It's quite possible to say that, for example, humans and chimpanzees--those other animals that use weapons, appear to commit deliberate murder for the hell of it and engage in territorial wars that wipe out whole populations--are "fallen" or "corrupted" with respect to and in comparison with, say, bonobos, which do none of those things. It's possible specifically because most human societies, theologically based or not, tend to regard such acts as "bad" and peaceful interactions as "good." Certainly human beings can be said to be "corrupted" or "fallen" with respect to quite human standards.

[trotsky]

42. Say what?

No one's forcing you to use language in any particular way, except for a way that makes sense. The idea that humans are "fallen" can ONLY make sense in a theological context. Fallen from what is the problem. Are we "fallen" from a state when we were less-evolved primates? I dunno, I think my life is a hell of a lot more pleasant, and our ethical and moral systems much more highly developed than those primitive monkeys. I don't see our state as being "fallen" at all - the basic kill-or-be-killed, predator vs. prey model is pervasive throughout the history of life on earth. That we have big brains that can design more effective killing tools doesn't mean we are "fallen" - our primitive ancestors were just as willing to kill to defend or acquire, as some other primate species even do today.

I know you have a theological beef with me, and you'll disagree with just about anything I have to say simply because you've branded me a certain type of atheist. But come on, "fallen"? Even most other religions don't have a concept of being "fallen" from anything. Christianity is pretty unique in its emphasis on that point.

[okasha]

46. Funny, it makes sense to me.

"I know you have a theological beef with me, and you'll disagree with just about anything I have to say simply because you've branded me a certain type of atheist"

Wrong.

My "beef" with you is that you cherry-pick evidence while accusing others of doing likewise and that you consistently misrepresent even what you're cherry-picking. It's nothing to do with your being an atheist of any type. I have exactly the same beef with Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson, for example.

Surely you know, by the way, that humans are not descended from any sort of monkey, primitive or otherwise.

[trotsky]

47. Of course I cherry-pick. Just like you do.

I'm trying to show the absurdity. We've been through this before. I don't know why you keep harping on me for doing it when I'm simply responding in kind.

And I do know we're not descended from monkeys, rather that we & monkeys share a primate ancestor. That ancestor was probably more monkey-like than human-like, so I just used some shorthand.

Do you have any response to the ideas in my post, that even before we had the ability to make deadly weapons, we were still violent and capable of killing? So when was this perfect state that we supposedly "fell" from?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

12. I think the concept of

original sin (portrayed in the creation myth as the reason for the fall) is all about humankind's understanding and regret that we are a violent, greedy species and we often put our animal instincts above altruism. Which, of course, is why we have survived. Which is rather ironic.

[Nikia]

35. I agree. It is about the choice to be moral or not.

The story is about when we became aware of the consequences of our actions on others, on the environment, and on the future. The "fall" and "original sin" only apply to those forms of life who have reached that level of thought.

[Zebedeo]

15. May I politely suggest

that your questions and comments reveal that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian theological principles?

As to No. 1 in your post:

It is interesting to me that you hypothesize the existence of extraterrestrial life, for which there is absolutely zero evidence, but (I am assuming you are atheistic) deny the existence of God based on lack of evidence.

This paragraph:

Given, also, that the Bible is the sole and complete Word of God, it must necessarily apply to the entire universe. This means that the sin of Adam and Eve, and the corresponding suffering and need for redemption, must also apply throughout the universe.

makes no sense at all to me. First of all, I have never heard of anyone claiming that the Bible is "complete" in the sense of containing a detailed recitation of all of God's will, or all of the history of the universe, or all natural laws, or any such thing. Secondly, I don't follow why mankind's sin and redemption must necessarily apply to the entire universe. As a poster above noted, it doesn't even apply to other species on Earth. Only one species disobeyed God, AFAIK. Do you know of any horse, worm or lizard that has been given rules by God but has knowingly disobeyed those rules? I thought not. So horses, worms and lizards would not seem to be guilty of original sin, or in need of salvation.

Your second question is bizarre. First, it relies on your assumptions in question no. 1, which are counterfactual. Second, why would you assume that a "sin wave" is limited by the speed of light? Your concept of sin is different from that of any Christians that I have ever known, read or heard about. You seem to regard sin as a physical force that travels through space and infects those with whom it comes into contact. I've never heard of such a thing. Furthermore, if it somehow did work this way, God is certainly not limited by the speed of light. Take the creation of the universe, for example. Scientists recently found that it took only a trillion-trillionth of a second for the universe to expand from the size of a marble to the size of the observable universe as we know it. Seems like some stuff would have had to travel a tad faster than the speed of light for that to happen.

My concept of original sin is that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. Like the "Cat's in the Cradle" song, we've grown up just like him. We can't blame Adam for it all, because if it had been any of us in the Garden, we would have done the same damned thing. In fact, we do it every day.

[hunter]

18. If your mama is a crack whore it's not your sin. That's the Orthodox POV.

But it's still your problem.

Even though I've been mostly Roman Catholic these past twenty years, that's one of the things that leaves me out in the schism. Babies are born innocent and untainted by their own sin.

It's most unfortunate that we all somehow manage to grow into our own peculiar sorts of sin, but it doesn't have to be so.

We are born without our own sins into a very messy and sinful world. So are "horses, worms and lizards" but mostly this earth's endangered species who have to put up with all our human sinful crap.

[trotsky]

22. Since you're bringing this up again, I assume you still don't get it.

It is interesting to me that you hypothesize the existence of extraterrestrial life, for which there is absolutely zero evidence, but (I am assuming you are atheistic) deny the existence of God based on lack of evidence.

Put aside the claims of extraterrestrials vs. gods for a moment.

Consider two other claims:

1) I have a dollar in cash in my pocket.

2) I have a trillion dollars in cash in my pocket.

Both claims are about the existence of something: a sum of cash in a pocket. But claim #2 is on its face absurd, since the highest denomination of US currency is a $100,000 bill, you'd have to be carrying 10 million of them in your pocket. I haven't yet seen a pocket that could hold that many bills. Besides, how could you ever obtain a trillion dollars in cash anyway? You'd be tying up a huge chunk of the US monetary system just to pull off this stunt. So we can safely, logically, reject claim #2.

But what about claim #1? Well, it's certainly within the realm of possibility, since on any given day, probably 90%+ of adults are carrying at least that much cash on them. So no, it's not dismissed outright. It's not proven, but well within the boundaries of a reasonable claim.

Is someone being logically inconsistent if they reject claim #2 but not claim #1?

[Zebedeo]

24. Good point

Is someone being logically inconsistent if they reject claim #2 but not claim #1?

No, that would be reasonable.

In that sense, you make a good point. Absence of evidence is not always equal.

However, I disagree with your implication that a belief in the existence of God is akin to believing that someone has a trillion dollars in his pocket. On the contrary, I think there is lots of evidence for God's existence, and that it takes a monumental leap of faith to believe that all the matter and energy in the universe spontaneously popped into existence without cause and that the incredible complexity and poetic beauty of the universe is all a coincidence. For me, evidence of God the Creator is everywhere I look.

By contrast, I am aware of no evidence whatsoever that there is any biological life form anywhere in the universe other than planet Earth. It is of course possible that there could be, but there is no reason to believe that there is. I do not think the "dollar in the pocket" analogy applies here, any more than the "trillion dollars in a pocket" analogy applies to the notion that God exists. We know from experience that people frequently have a dollar in their pockets. By contrast, we do not know of any extraterrestrial life. Despite looking pretty hard, we have never seen a single instance of it.

I just think it is interesting that people who are ardently atheistic based on supposed lack of evidence of God, are often simultaneously big Star Trek fans and believers in extraterrestrial life - frequently life that is superintelligent and has formed civilizations superior to our own.
I hope I do not offend anyone in suggesting that the reason for this may be that each of us has an inborn need to believe in something better than our own world. Some might characterize religious belief as fantasy. I have a different view - that each of us has a God-shaped hole. We are made to seek God. "God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us." Acts 17:27. Those of us who do not know God still have the hole, and to fill it, seek out God-substitutes, such as belief in superior extraterrestrial beings with superadvanced civilizations.

[trotsky]

26. I still don't think you get it.

What constitutes rock-hard "evidence" for god to you is nothing of the sort for most other people. Let's not get sidetracked into your past logical fallacies about special creation, and instead focus on the topic at hand.

The dollar vs. trillion dollars was supposed to be extreme - so that you could see what it's like from someone else's perspective. The god you believe in, that you have described, is so logically impossible and absurd to me that it's just as if you told me you had a trillion dollars. Seriously.

I just think it is interesting that people who are ardently atheistic based on supposed lack of evidence of God, are often simultaneously big Star Trek fans and believers in extraterrestrial life - frequently life that is superintelligent and has formed civilizations superior to our own.

So? There are so many billions of stars, and we are now detecting planets at such a rate it's likely that a star system NOT having planets is going to end up being a rarity. So even if Earth is a one-in-a-million place, there's probably a few billion earth-like worlds out there. The incredible vastness of the universe makes it seem ridiculous to suppose that we could be the only sentient life. Besides, the genre is science fiction / fantasy. It's fun to imagine a future of technology, starships, the conquest of humankind's problems, and a time when religion is viewed as a quaint old custom rather than the primary focus of our existence.

It's rather presumptuous of you to assume that everyone has a "God-shaped hole" - will you believe someone if they tell you they do not, or will you arrogantly insist that they still do?

[Zebedeo]

28. Actually, I like science fiction

quite a lot. I read it voraciously as a teenager. I still enjoy the old black-and-white Twilight Zones. That doesn't mean I think they are true. They're just entertaining stories. Of course, I guess you could point out that one man's entertaining stories are another man's Gospel truth.

In your post, I think the major fallacy is your equating the existence of planets with the existence of life. You have no basis, as I see it, to do so. We can see from our own solar system that planets do not necessarily support life. In fact, the only planet that has life on it is Earth, as far as we know. The sheer number of possible planets existing in the universe is something that you see as supporting the theory that extra-terrestrial life exists. I don't see how that follows. There are probably a lot of moons in the universe, but despite the huge number of them, there is no reason to suspect that any of them is made of green cheese. Is it "ridiculous to suppose" that none of them is made of green cheese, just because of the number of them?

Well, I'm certainly not the first person to suggest that people have a God-shaped hole in their hearts. Here is a good discussion of it.

BTW, I don't ASSUME that everyone has a "God-shaped hole." I BELIEVE it. I feel certain that you believe otherwise. Is it more "arrogant" for me to persist in my religious beliefs, or for you to call my beliefs "assumptions"?

[trotsky]

29. Planets

You can't have life without a planet, at least as far as we know. Now the existence of planets does not prove the existence of life, but I didn't ever claim so. However, the abundance of them so far indicates that they are anything but rare, and since there are 3 right in our system that are within the right orbit range to have supported life (as we know it), it just seems absurd to think that this could be the only place in the universe with these conditions. Absurd and even egotistical, to think that the entire vastness of space was created specifically for a little race of monkeys to play out some sort of grudge match between an eternal, infinite god and the guy who doesn't like him.

Your green cheese analogy is bogus, by the way. If you'd like, I can explain why, but hopefully you know you were reaching.

I'm glad you have found something to fill your "god-shaped hole." You can go on believing that everyone has one, and I'll go on knowing you're wrong.

[Brentos]

31. Mmmm cash.

Actually, I have a smart-card with a trillion dollars cash in my pocket...or at least I could. Therefore God exists and aliens don't! :-) Or, is it possible that I shrunk all that cash, or burned it, or something so that it would fit? There are possibilities there.

The discussion point that while we don't have any proof of alien life, just conditions that would possibly support it, to me, is a direct equivalent to: while we don't have any proof of God, we have conditions that would support it. Humans appear to be created/evolved to want to believe in the supernatural just as there are many planets/moon in the universe. The supposition that it seems unreasonable to assume that no other planets carry life is crazy, assumes that we know what the odds are of life forming or being created on planets is. Since we only know of one, we have no decent sample size to make any assumptions, and it would be crazy to assume otherwise.

I declare a draw on this one. I can not prove the existence of God to you, nor can you prove the existence of aliens to me--even though I believe in the possibility of there being aliens...does this make me an ag-alienostic? :-)

[trotsky]

32. Conditions that would support a god?

We have a universe that for all intents and purposes seems to go about its business without any gods or supernatural forces necessary. I guess that could be conditions for a god who has absolutely no role in its creation - the god of deism. But that god acts and behaves exactly like a god that doesn't exist.

That many humans appear to have evolved to believe in "the supernatural" of course doesn't imply such a thing exists, only that we have an innate desire to explain things - and we're willing to make up explanations to satisfy that need, if necessary.

And ultimately, I'm not trying to "prove" the existence of aliens. I'd say there's a pretty darn good chance that other life exists out in the universe somewhere, but that's as far as I'll go. No UFO abductions, no crop circles, none of that junk.

[Brentos]

33. Good points.

I'm also not trying to "prove" the existence of God. I'd say there's a pretty darn good chance that God exists (I do believe).

We have theories as to what happened prior to the big bang, but nothing more. Was God necessary to create it? Maybe. I believe so, but neither of us have proof.

If God created the universe and created the laws of physics, then there would be no proof of him controlling the universe, as it was set up from the get-go, therefore I can not prove his existence that way. I agree that there is a good chance of life out there, and a good chance of life up there. Neither has proof, both have "evidence" whether others believe it or not. You could say the alien argument is based on science and the God argument is based on faith...and that is somewhat true. I would buy that science shows us that there are other planet(oids) that have the capability of holding life and the possibility of there being life, but we have no proof, to say with any certainty that there is life out there could take faith.

But, scientifically, once you go to the extremes in size or time, science, too, breaks down into unknowns and "faith" or postulations. What happened before the big bang? What happens after the universe finishes expanding, or does it? Why do gluons do what they do? Why does quantum physics work more like spiritual mumbo-jumbo then the rest of science? Good questions that I like to follow.

[trotsky]

34. "Prior to" or "before" the big bang...

has no meaning. Time itself originated with the big bang, thus asking what came "before" it is like trying to walk north from the North Pole. It has no meaning.

As far as your god being the force behind it, well, do you have proof that a giant invisible mosquito didn't do it instead? If you don't, does that mean I'm equally justified believing in the invisible mosquito over natural processes? What about any of the multitudes of different creation stories out there? If you can't disprove them, does that mean they have an equal chance of having happened?

And let me make one small distinction - I don't have "faith" that other life exists, I think it is a strong possibility. Do you understand the difference? I know the temptation to reach out and label something that an atheist believes as religious "faith" but trust me, I've known religious faith, and this is not the same.

[Brentos]

36. What proof?

What proof can you show me that time started at the big bang? How did it occur? What was the process? What is the evidence? Do most scientists agree with this? Where can I see that proof? Maybe discussing life without God is like walking North from the North pole. Again, neither have proof, and cannot prove themselves to the other point of view, nor be disproved, for that matter.

As to the mosquito, no, I don't have proof it wasn't a mosquito, but I have more evidence that it was God based on religious writings, prophets, etc., but I cannot prove that to you, nor can I prove it wasn't a giant mosquito. Maybe there is an equal chance of the happening, but I believe one, not the other.

Minor semantical debate aside: My definition I am using of faith is one of the dictionary definitions: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." I'm not trying to impose any religiosity on you. I'm just stating, that as I have no logical proof or material evidence of God, nor does anyone (I wasn't speaking for you) have logical proof or material evidence of aliens. Both are based on faith (one religious, one not). If, as an atheist you have an applicable word you would rather I use, I would be happy to substitute it for faith. I do see that you believe in the strong possibility of alien life, as do I. We differ in my belief and faith in God, whereas you don't believe or have faith in a god.

[trotsky]

37. We can get caught up in "where's the proof" on any claim.

But the north pole analogy has a direct correlation to the mathematics involved at a quantum singularity. Just because this might not constitute "proof" in your eyes, doesn't mean your belief a god, a mosquito, or a tree spirit is equally justified. You are veering off into religious faith, as is the mosquito-believer. Come up with a falsifiable test for your proposition, and we'll talk.

[Brentos]

38. ???

What do you mean by a falsifiable test? And what is the falsifiable test for "no time before the big bang"? I actually am not familiar with this.

Thanks,
-Brent

[trotsky]

39. OK

You need to state your hypothesis (whatever it is) in a way that can be tested, and possibly disproven.

The idea that time began with the big bang is a result of the mathematics that describe quantum mechanics and the fundamental forces of the universe. It's falsifiable by showing a better mathematical model that explains known data and then makes different predictions about the origins of the universe.

[Brentos]

43. Ahhhh....gotcha...

Then, I can state that there are theories that show there was time, or something before the big bang. The multi verse theory where universes bubble and boil in and out of existence, is one such theory which fits the known data and supposes something happened before the big bang. In this case a cauldron of whatever bubbling for infinity (I don't have the details, I was reading about it in Discover magazine last year). Neat theory. Then the next question would be what came before the roiling seas of primordial existence? They were there forever? Alpha-Omega? The laws of physics for each universe, I believe, could be different, but why? How are they set? Fascinating questions. Science can describe how things happen, but not necessarily why. For example, in our universe, certain rules control how electron behave...but why is it like that? Why does gravity happen? We can measure, describe, infer, and test, but never truly know why things are set up the way they are. I believe God set them up, others believe randomness set them up. Neither is provable or not-provable at that level, as far as I am aware. Fun discussion!

[trotsky]

45. No, this is about YOUR theory.

The "god" theory. Can it be stated in such a way as to be falsifiable? Is there any evidence you would accept that would disprove your god?

The multiverse theory is one of many - postulated for the very reason that I pointed out: we can't know what happened "before" the big bang. We can't even state for certain that something "caused" the big bang, because the whole concept of cause & effect might just be an emergent property of our universe.

And a minor point - no one is suggesting, to my knowledge, that this is an issue of "god" vs. "randomness." Common misconception, especially among literal creationists (are you one?) when attacking evolution - that somehow evolution is just "random change."

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

19. There is more than one way to look at this creation story

you are looking at it from a literal standpoint, apparently based upon an English translation of ancient Hebrew texts. I would suggest you check out The Genesis Meditations by Neil-Douglas Klotz to find a mystical interpretation of the Hebrew texts to compare your concepts with his.

[bloom]

44. That sounds like a good suggestion.

It seems to me that people who want to argue with what the right-wingers think ought to go argue with the right-wingers.

[Ready4Change]

20. I don't have any answers...

But I applaud your concept of the "sin wave." It brings up a whole host of other questions. The first that came to my mind is:

1. If we can create a faster than light starship, could we achieve redemption by racing ahead of the sin wave?

[J Williams]

41. What the 'Original Sin" Actually Was

In Joseph J. Adamson's works, he explains that the so-called "original sin" was actually when man thought he could play God. After all, he "ate" from the "forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Therefore, he thought he could JUDGE good and evil and thus play God.

Adamson explains that is why Jesus said we should judge not, and let our "eye be single" (to see beyond the illusion of duality).

He also explains that the "Christian" idea that Jesus died "for the sins" of humanity is based on false inteprtetation of the Old Testament. He says that Jesus allowed himself to be arrested and crucified to culminate his teachings around love, forgiveness, tolerance, and pacifism ... and that is the truth which totally escapes the so-called "Christian Right."

[godhatesrepublicans]

48. You're missing the point of what was once a very egalitarian idea.

The point of the "Original Sin" metaphor was that all humans are by definition flawed, and therefore all on equal footing. Once people started assuming "EVERYONE ELSE may have original sin on their soul, but MY shit doesn't stink," that's when the metaphor fell apart.

For more on this theme, see my recent addition to the www.godhatesrepublicans.org website, at http://www.godhatesrepublicans.org/sermons/sermonfive.html, especially the section entitled
JESUS CHRIST DIDN’T DIE FOR YOUR SINS, HE WASN’T A HUMAN SACRIFICE.

[Zebedeo]

49. You have a lot of quotes from Scripture on your website

Do you believe that what is written in the Bible is true?

If so, how can you possibly argue that Jesus did not die for our sins. It is written over and over again. Even Jesus Himself said so:

For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:40

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. John 6:51

You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be,you will indeed die in your sins. John 8:23

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. John 10:11

love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13

[godhatesrepublicans]

51. I addressed that recently, please check out my "What's New" page

This is from my recent article, "You preach against the Republicans stand for. What do you stand for?"


JESUS CHRIST DIDN’T DIE FOR YOUR SINS, HE WASN’T A HUMAN SACRIFICE.

The one bible verse most non-Christians can still spot a mile off is John 3:16, waved by people at public events for years. John 3:16 translates as "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

There are two schools of thought in Christianity, one I call the “lazy way” and the other is “the right way.” The “lazy way” people like to think that Jesus dies for their sins, so that there isn’t any further effort required on their part to be saved. The “Lazy Way” people talk about the Virgin Birth and the Crucifixion ALL the time. They made The Passion of the Christ one of the top movies of 2004, watching every frame of someone else taking the blame for them, and felt all gooey inside over it.

They view the story of Christianity in a very simple, almost bloodthirsty way. As the Lazy People see it, people are born “sinful” just by being human. This is one of God’s Rules as they see it. According to their theory, to correct this, God arranges for a Son to be born that is free of this “original Sin” and then arranges events so that his Son will die in a hideous, painful manner to change the rule and make sure that people can suddenly avoid being sinners from birth.

To borrow from the Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice:

The concept of self-sacrifice and martyrs are central to Christianity. In Christian teaching, God became incarnate in Jesus Christ to accomplish the reconciliation of God and humanity, which had separated itself from God through sin (see the concept of original sin). God's perfect justice required an atonement for sin from humanity if human beings were to be saved from damnation, but God knew limited human beings could not make sufficient atonement, for humanity's offence to God was infinite. So God, in his perfect mercy, himself became a man so as to offer a perfect sacrifice which would compensate for humanity's sin. Only God could make the infinite sacrifice; only a human being could offer it on behalf of humanity, hence only Jesus Christ, truly God and truly human, could offer the atoning sacrifice. This he did by his death on the Cross. This sacrifice replaced the insufficient animal sacrifice of the Old Covenant; Christ the "Lamb of God" replaced the lambs sacrificed at Passover in the Mosaic law. Christ's bodily resurrection three days after his crucifixion shows the efficacy of his sacrifice in freeing human beings from the chains of death.

In other words, they think God sacrificed Himself to Himself to change a Law He made, because He changed his mind on a major point of all Creation. And because of this, as long as you say “Thanks!” for a sacrifice someone else made you’re absolved of all sin, according to this very lazy view.

The idea of sacrificing to deities was among the first ideas humans ever had if archeology is any guide. It is usually a bribe of food, or liquor, or treasure. Sometimes it was humans, under the theory “What else would a God eat but people?”

I choose not to believe the Creator of the Cosmos, the Architect of the human central nervous system and the Final Arbiter of morality can be bribed with tasty snacks, like a cranky child.

Here’s my personal interpretation of “John 3:16” that you can take or leave. As a Protestant I’m free to interpret Scripture as my heart demands, and to try and convince anyone I may be able to that I’m right.

Jesus Christ, the Earthy incarnation of the Creator didn’t come to Earth for the purpose of being a human/divine sacrifice at the hands of the humans he came to redeem. Put that right out of your head for the moment.

God had been trying to communicate what he expected of his creation for many hundreds of thousands of years through various Earthly prophets. The problem was, with our tiny minds, we couldn’t grasp what the Creator was trying to tell us. It was all too big for us to understand, even when He explained it very slowly to us one at a time

Imagine that you as a human had something very important to communicate to a civilization of bacteria. You did your best to explain things to the bacteria, and at times the bacteria would react as if they heard you, but they very obviously never grasped what you were telling them.

A reasonable next step might be to (through some super-advanced science) put your self into the mind of one of the bacteria, just as it was created. You’d go from being a Mighty Human to being a lowly bacterium, with the limited abilities and lifespan of a common microbe.

Then you would grow up among the bacteria; learn their language and culture from their point of view. And when you’d gotten as close as you could to figuring out how to talk to bacteria properly, then you could try once again to give them the message that is so important that they need to know. Even though you would die eventually in the form of a bacteria from whatever it is that bacteria die of, it would be worth it, because you were willing to face these limitations and vastly shortened lifespan, because you love these bacteria and want to tell them your message.

Then they decide to murder you. That is irony, for those who don’t know what that is.

This is not a perfect parable, but it gets the point across. God gave His only Son to live a mortal life, God incarnated as a human. Whether it was death by old age, or by human intervention, he was physically mortal.

Dying on the Cross wasn’t the point of the exercise. He didn’t “die for your sins” because HE WOULD HAVE EVENTUALLY DIED ANYWAY AS A MORTAL.

What Jesus Christ did, what the point was, was that he tried to show people WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR. If you don’t listen to the Message, then the Messenger’s difficulty getting to you was a total waste of the Messenger’s time.

[J Williams]

50. Actually....

The so-called "original sin" was actually when man thought he could play God. After all, he "ate" from the "forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Therefore, he thought he could JUDGE good and evil and thus play God.

Joseph J. Adamson explains that, and he explains that is why Jesus said we should judge not, and let our "eye be single" (to see beyond the illusion of duality).

He also explains that the "Christian" idea that Jesus died "for the sins" of humanity is based on false inteprtetation of the Old Testament. He says that Jesus allowed himself to be arrested and crucified to culminate his teachings around love, forgiveness, tolerance, and pacifism ... and that is the truth which totally escapes the so-called "Christian Right."