Original Sin and...

[Guest]

Also, the whole garden/fall narrative just serves to paint god as a capricious prick. He gives innocents conflicting directives, and then punishes them for doing what was necessary. The whole time the innocents had no capability to understand anything. At least according to the narrative.

The whole "I will partake that man might be" is a contradiction to Adam's reported state, as he should not have been able to reach that conclusion before partaking of the fruit.

In short, the whole story is a huge mess.

[_nc47]

Also, the whole garden/fall narrative just serves to paint god as a capricious prick. He give innocents conflicting directives, and then punishes them for doing what was necessary. The whole time the innocents had no capability to understand anything. At least according to the narrative.

The whole "I will partake that man might be" is a contradiction to Adam's reported state, as he should not have been able to reach that conclusion before partaking of the fruit.

In short, the whole story is a huge mess.

What kind of scientist are you? Just curious.

[_SteelHead]

Ms in cs with emphasis in viz.

But I work in cyber security for critical infrastructure.

[_nc47]

Ms in cs with emphasis in viz.

But I work in cyber security for critical infrastructure.

For some reason I thought you were a materials scientist. I'm taking an experimental design class and half the problems are from materials science.

[_subgenius]

Not so. There are individual ideas of right and wrong and then their are societal. The attribution of your societal norms onto god as their author, does not make it so. It is as you put it: "sophmoric speculation". Unprovable in every sense of the word.

i never stated that they had to attribute anything to a Christian God. I merely noted the inescapable conclusion of their own premises...a conclusion easily avoided by Christianity.
"Individual ideas of right and wrong" are non-existent...delusions....one can not support the claim, as an individual, for anything as being "right" or "wrong".

The idea that there is some great sky being keeping a running tally of your rights and wrongs so that he can determine your eternal outcome is equally unprovable.

I never claimed to prove or disprove that idea...your introduction of that here is merely an attempt to dig a rabbit hole.

There are also faith traditions without the concept of sin or atonement, but that have the concepts or right and wrong, good and bad. Candomble is one such faith.

so?...point remains the same...the polytheistic systems of the Candomble still adhere to an objective morality....syncretic they are.
Besides, it is good and bad that do not exist for the Candomble...they understand action and consequence as dictated by an "external" force...not from within as the previous post relies upon....furthermore, and consequently, they are not amoral as Zelph is proposing - The moral code of Candomble is regulated by the Baba Egum, who ensures the continuity of morals from one generation to the next.

But back to the original topic. Whatever action Adam took in the Mormon framework in the garden, under Mormon doctrine can not be placed upon him as sin as he was incapable of discerning right from wrong and hence was truly an innocent. No sin, no onus, no forgiveness needed.

not true. Begin with Romans 5:13 clearly speaks of how sin was in existence before being imputed by the law...and while no sin was accounted against anyone, Adam was punished, as was all after him.
which i assume is you concluding that since there was no sin there can be no forgiveness?

[_Themis]

If you're wife doesn't find out, it's OK?

I don't recall him making that argument. It's also interesting to see the hypocrisy of bring up cheating on one's spouse when Joseph was doing just that. He made a commitment not to with Emma. It's also interesting that subby wants to see sin as some eternal unchanging absolute. In LDS doctrine one is supposed to do what Gods says, even if it goes against the general commands from God, which changes as well. That could mean murder as with Nephi, or cheating on your spouse as with Joseph.

Don't feel so bad, you're only conditioned to feel that way?

We are conditioned to think and feel certain ways. This is true for everyone. That is why those who are taught to feel guilty about masturbation tend to feel guilty when they do it. Those that are not don't feel guilty, since they were never taught to.

[_Themis]

by default - one being amoral necessitates there being no actual moral fabric to be a part of....this lack of cohesion ultimately conflicts with and could eventually destroy the moral fabric...fabric being the key word, as it implies an intentional framework or system...something an amoral position does not provide.
simple really

You have failed to back this one up every time the subject comes up. ZelphtheGreat provided one of the best means in which humans come up with moral codes. Atheists are a-theist, not amoral. I know this is something you are desperate not to accept. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/morality

[_Themis]

There really is no such thing as sin except as a construct for control by one group over another. Religious leaders who use it to make a living off other people.

There is doing things that hurt others and ourselves, which experience teach us is wrong because it is harmful.

But "sin"? No such thing.

People like you are destructive to the moral fabric of society.

How?

Here is the answer:

Let me preface this by saying that I am a TBM and I don't intend on ever leaving the Church.

I always love how you get right to the meat of the issue.

[_SteelHead]

Sub,
Adam did not sin in partaking of the fruit, he was incapable of sinning not knowing right from wrong. This is why in the church we refer to Adam's transgression. He transgressed the law, but did not sin. As he did not sin, forgiveness has no import.

Ultimately every individual decides upon their own morality, independent of the source. Be it god or society, you and only you as an individual are the independent arbitrator of action. Individuals without any sense of morality are sociopaths. They exist despite whatever moral environment they are raised in.

You may call it narcissism, but there is no way you can show/prove that there is a universal and/or external definition of right and wrong. Each individual ultimately decides for him or herself, under the influence of their society, culture, upbringing environment etc.

[_ludwigm]

.

Let me preface this by saying that I am a TBM and I don't intend on ever leaving the Church.

I always love how you get right to the meat of the issue.

LUCIFER (to the LORD, little after the Creation): (the whole SCENE can be read here)

I can pass nothing except my essence.
(Pointing to the angels.)
You are praised enough by this caddish crowd,
As to praise you is only fair of them.