Was Adam’s first sin that of not reproducing?

Greatest I am

Greatest I am

Active Member
Was Adam’s first sin that ofnot reproducing?


Gen 1; 28 And God blessedthem; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish theearth,

Strangely woman disappears.Then Gen 2; 18 And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should bealone; I will make him a help meet for him.'

Gen 4; 1 And the man knew Evehis wife; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said: 'I have gotten a man withthe help of the LORD.'

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

Genesis indicates that Adamwas not very bright. It also indicates that he somehow did not have theinstincts we all have including the desire to reproduce. At least not until heate of the tree of knowledge.

Strange to think that withoutbreaking God’s command not to eat of the tree of knowledge, Adam would havenever reproduced and none of us would be here to thank any God for creating us.

As you can see from the Eden time-line, Adamhad a lot of time to know Eve, ------- yet did not do as commanded in Gen 1. Infact he waited until Gen 4.

If you, if you are a man,were told to reproduce, can you see yourself sitting there naming animalsinstead of enjoying sex? Do not lie. You know you would have jumped Eve in the winkof an eye. Unless you are gay that is.

Now I know that Christianshave some strange notions about not having sex at certain times but the caseabove shows that Adam refused or was not mature enough to do God’s command. Icannot see the later because God would not request what cannot be given. Therefore,eating of the tree of knowledge was not the first sin of disobedience.

Not reproducing when told towas the first sin of disobedience.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

 
endwatcher

endwatcher

New Member
I believe that the reasoning behind creation was for ourselves to reach "Like God" eventualy.
Hence the reasoning whithin creation, "Let us make man in our image" the word "our" is another story.
I believe that we are created before body, while Adam was also.
God had to create the system that is today in order not to impose and force us to love God.
"Forced love is rape, right?"

With that thought, I feel that a all knowing wouldve know in the first place before even putting Adam and Eve in the postition that they were in, that they were going to "fall"
But the real reasoning to life "and multiple lives" is to greater ones knowledge and become closer and "like" his or hers God.

So, I believe the answer to the question would be that, God knowingly created them to "fall" at what they did.
But Im not so sure on the scholarly transcripts to cast doubt into a all knowing infinite, because of flawed humans.

Im Gnostic by the way.
So my beliefs might conflict a little with yours if you are a traditionalist.
You should check out some Gnostics, Because I firmly believe the Catholics had removed/banned/murdered..etc..etc those who opposed them with the real message.
Check out the Books of Adam and Eve. Has a little more detail
You can check them out here. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/adam_eve/adam_eve.htm
 
NorthofEngland

NorthofEngland

Well-Known Member
We CREATED God in OUR image...
then made ourselves believe it was the other way around.

Major religions work on the same level as the fraudsters who pretend they can contact a Mothers dead son
or a Daughters dead father....
Tricking someone who is desperate to be tricked cannot be too difficult.
Lying to a person who begs to be lied to doesn't even feel dishonest.

The concept of God and the afterlife performs the same function for adults
as Santa Claus and fairy tales do for children.
Maybe it's time the entire human race grew up?
 
endwatcher

endwatcher

New Member
NorthofEngland.

I respectfully disagree; friend.

I have encountered to much to chump up to "self delusion"
And witnessed before having a forthought.
Meaning I could have never "created" a event.

I am sure you will believe otherwise, and thats Ok.
Everyone must find their way, in their own unique way.

But the remark about Santa Claus and fairy tales being equivalent to God "or any other spirituality" is apples to oranges in my op.
Because their have been numerous of cultures, books, witnesses, etc..etc around the world that all have similarities that are quite significant.
But, I dont want to get into that; dont want to stray from the topic.


You have to look at everything in a different level.
We obviously are held back with boundries, pre thought, after thought, morals, etc..etc
So how could a bounded mind, understand anything that is not within its boundries?

Remove boundries, become Wu "empty" so you also have no boundries. Then everything is limitless
 
Someacdude

Someacdude

Active Member
Ademic sin was passed down through Adam and Eve and consequently all their offspring , this was due to breaking one simple law along with the warning.
Satan possessed the snake or whatever and convinced Eve that Mankind didnt need God, That eating from the tree of life would make man LIKE GOD, knowing good and bad.
Man for the most part continues to believe that lie and look where we are, millions upon million upon million slaughtered in wars, famine , man as the scripture says has dominated man to his injury.

Please dont confuse the Bible with Religion, there are many who Again quote ' have a form of godly devotion but prove false to its power. in other words the electric church and ANY religion that advocates war or killing of others. That includes the R.C.C., Islam and anyone else who would obey their God given conscience to take another life.


Greatest I am said:
Was Adam’s first sin that ofnot reproducing?


Gen 1; 28 And God blessedthem; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish theearth,

Strangely woman disappears.Then Gen 2; 18 And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should bealone; I will make him a help meet for him.'

Gen 4; 1 And the man knew Evehis wife; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said: 'I have gotten a man withthe help of the LORD.'

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

Genesis indicates that Adamwas not very bright. It also indicates that he somehow did not have theinstincts we all have including the desire to reproduce. At least not until heate of the tree of knowledge.

Strange to think that withoutbreaking God’s command not to eat of the tree of knowledge, Adam would havenever reproduced and none of us would be here to thank any God for creating us.

As you can see from the Eden time-line, Adamhad a lot of time to know Eve, ------- yet did not do as commanded in Gen 1. Infact he waited until Gen 4.

If you, if you are a man,were told to reproduce, can you see yourself sitting there naming animalsinstead of enjoying sex? Do not lie. You know you would have jumped Eve in the winkof an eye. Unless you are gay that is.

Now I know that Christianshave some strange notions about not having sex at certain times but the caseabove shows that Adam refused or was not mature enough to do God’s command. Icannot see the later because God would not request what cannot be given. Therefore,eating of the tree of knowledge was not the first sin of disobedience.

Not reproducing when told towas the first sinof disobedience.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Greatest I am said:
If you know why God ignored Adam's first transgression then why not inform?

Why would God wait for the second transgression that happened to give mankind the most benefit?

Or is your Spam I am all you can say?

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
Because the Bible and Christianity are bullshit?
 
Someacdude

Someacdude

Active Member
PetFlora said:
His sin was believing Eve would be different
Click to expand...
That did have alot to do with it, Adam knew he wasnt supposed to eat the tree , but im guessing his wife talked him into it or he just didnt want to be left out? Who knows, one things for sure, if you want to see a rational person act stupid introduce a woman into the mix, dag i envy Gay people sometimes.
 
Dr.J20

Dr.J20

Well-Known Member
Greatest I am said:
Genesis indicates that Adamwas not very bright. It also indicates that he somehow did not have theinstincts we all have including the desire to reproduce. At least not until heate of the tree of knowledge.

Strange to think that withoutbreaking God’s command not to eat of the tree of knowledge, Adam would havenever reproduced and none of us would be here to thank any God for creating us.
Click to expand...
i don't think you've quite got this right. unsupported assertions aside (e.g, genesis indicates adam wasn't very bright; lacked instinct), it seems as though you are taking the order of presentation in genesis to be chronological to assert a temporal fallacy. If you take the notion that child bearing is the curse visited upon eve for disobeying God's commandment, and that man (adam) must now toil for his food and shelter--instead of being provided for in the garden--then it would seem clear that using the phrase "be fruitful, and multiply" from Gen 1 to argue that adam's first disobedience was failing to reproduce simply mistakenly asserts that the order of presentation in the bible must necessarily be linear-chronological. Ever read a book that has a chapter in the middle that is a flashback? or watched a tv show like this? So i don't think there is a temporal issue, thereby causing problems for your arg. that the first sin of adam was really not multiplying. Also, that multiplication wasn't the only thing "dictated" in gen 1, 28: they were also told to do things like subdue the earth, and control the birds etc. I'm not sure biblical scholars would then agree that this is on the same level as say the 10 commandments, which were definitive proscriptions directly from God.
We also kind of have to set aside that you're trying to work between literal practical reality and the realm of Christian mythology/mysticism. In essence, you intermixing literal interpretations here. (E.g, to assert something about Adam's instinctual profile introduces adam as a live human being the way we understand human beings, but if he was the first one (and here i've lapsed, now, into mythology) then there's nothing to say he should or should not have a set of instincts that he ostensibly would have been the father of. Indeed, it makes more sense that he doesn't have instincts at this point in time, since he has never had cause to develop them; while, eons later, after much special (as in, pertaining to the species) experience, we've developed instincts--see how probelmatic it is to go between the two kinds of readings?).
Not that there's anything decidedly wrong with that literalist interpretation, if that's your faith, but it isn't exactly an established fact that the verse-poetry of the Bible is a literal transcription of events.

So, in short, no I think probably most people will recognize that the first sin was eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
an interesting aside, what might this suggest about our fascination with morality? It would seem to me that we were never intended to get sucked into the weakling's game of existing between the poles but rather, as Nietzsche might have it, beyond good and evil.
what about them apples?
Be easy,
:leaf:
 
Greatest I am

Greatest I am

Active Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I kill Christianity more and more every day I exist. You're going about it the wrong way
Click to expand...
Always happy to learn to be more effective.

Show me where the right way that you hint at can be found. An example is always good to see.

Was Jefferson wrong?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligiblepropositions. -- Thomas Jefferson


Regards
DL
 
Greatest I am

Greatest I am

Active Member
Dr.J20 said:
i don't think you've quite got this right. unsupported assertions aside (e.g, genesis indicates adam wasn't very bright; lacked instinct), it seems as though you are taking the order of presentation in genesis to be chronological to assert a temporal fallacy. If you take the notion that child bearing is the curse visited upon eve for disobeying God's commandment, and that man (adam) must now toil for his food and shelter--instead of being provided for in the garden--then it would seem clear that using the phrase "be fruitful, and multiply" from Gen 1 to argue that adam's first disobedience was failing to reproduce simply mistakenly asserts that the order of presentation in the bible must necessarily be linear-chronological. Ever read a book that has a chapter in the middle that is a flashback? or watched a tv show like this? So i don't think there is a temporal issue, thereby causing problems for your arg. that the first sin of adam was really not multiplying. Also, that multiplication wasn't the only thing "dictated" in gen 1, 28: they were also told to do things like subdue the earth, and control the birds etc. I'm not sure biblical scholars would then agree that this is on the same level as say the 10 commandments, which were definitive proscriptions directly from God.
We also kind of have to set aside that you're trying to work between literal practical reality and the realm of Christian mythology/mysticism. In essence, you intermixing literal interpretations here. (E.g, to assert something about Adam's instinctual profile introduces adam as a live human being the way we understand human beings, but if he was the first one (and here i've lapsed, now, into mythology) then there's nothing to say he should or should not have a set of instincts that he ostensibly would have been the father of. Indeed, it makes more sense that he doesn't have instincts at this point in time, since he has never had cause to develop them; while, eons later, after much special (as in, pertaining to the species) experience, we've developed instincts--see how probelmatic it is to go between the two kinds of readings?).
Not that there's anything decidedly wrong with that literalist interpretation, if that's your faith, but it isn't exactly an established fact that the verse-poetry of the Bible is a literal transcription of events.

So, in short, no I think probably most people will recognize that the first sin was eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
an interesting aside, what might this suggest about our fascination with morality? It would seem to me that we were never intended to get sucked into the weakling's game of existing between the poles but rather, as Nietzsche might have it, beyond good and evil.
what about them apples?
Be easy,
:leaf:
Click to expand...
Thanks for this.

I think it is somewhat egoistical on our part to try to tell the bible authors that they have not lined up the chapter properly.


But I agree that the timing is all screwed up as they have God, the Trinity, that includes Jesus, somehow living before his mother or the earth were even created. Time travelling.

Miracles make any interpretation possible if you want to believe such B S.

Gnostic Christians like myself have never read scriptures literally. Too damaging to the mind.

Regards
DL
 
Dr.J20

Dr.J20

Well-Known Member
Greatest I am said:
Thanks for this.

I think it is somewhat egoistical on our part to try to tell the bible authors that they have not lined up the chapter properly.


But I agree that the timing is all screwed up as they have God, the Trinity, that includes Jesus, somehow living before his mother or the earth were even created. Time travelling.

Miracles make any interpretation possible if you want to believe such B S.

Gnostic Christians like myself have never read scriptures literally. Too damaging to the mind.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
you are a paradox; you quote my friend, Jefferson, which I like. But, you're methods of reasoning are askew. no one insinuated the bible authors lined up the chapter improperly; rather, what I suggested was that they were not intending to write linear-chronologically. Verse does lend itself to the bending of time.
Further, to assert that "the timing is all screwed up" because of the early discussion of the Trinity in Genesis is to read literally (and linear-chronologically, again). The opposite of what you say you do. you forward a claim based on a literal reading, then say you never read scriptures literally. Now, it might be asserted that my ego is very sensitive because I interpret your statements about egotism vis-a-vis biblical interpretation as directed towards me, personally. I can only deny this, pointing to a persistent commitment to good logical reasoning as my primary motivation: I hoped only to clarify that we are not, actually, in alignment in our stances and assertions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top