Did sin enter the world through Adam, Satan or Yahweh?

I like everything but this.

The problem of evil issues, if looked at a certain way, shows that it is an evil within a greater good, and thus, as some ancients, even Christians before literalism reared it’s brain killing power, seemed to know, and that is why they said it was necessary to god’s plan. It is definitely part of evolutions plan and that plan is what rules us.

It gets a bit long but if your time permits. I wrote it for Christians so take the sin references as just plain do evil or harm.

 Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God’s culpability as the author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose “A” or “B” (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of “being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent” and “desiring to eat a forbidden fruit” must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and “free will” means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.

Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.

As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

This link speak to theistic evolution.

smithsonianmag.com/smart-new … 66/?no-ist

If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin.

Doing evil then is actually forced on us by evolution and the need to survive. Our default position is to cooperate or to do good. I offer this clip as proof of this. You will note that we default to good as it is better for survival.

youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Regards
DL

Sin has always been.
To some degree or another,
things clash and the end is destruction.

Hey Greatest, you big god apologist you. There is no conflict between god and nature because if there is a god, then god is also nature. Or if you like, there is no nature. It’s nonsense. Like saying “there is no conflict between me and this sentence I just wrote.”

3 pillars of god.

1. omniscience - god knows all.
2. omnipotence - god can do anything. Even, to us, paradoxical things. For example god can both create something so heavy god cannot lift it, and god can also lift it. It’s right there that everyone wants to say “that’s impossible” but that is the only answer that alows an omnipotent god to exist.
3. god loves us.

For god, there are no 'should’s or 'must’s or 'have to be’s - those are things that only apply to less than godlike beings like ourselves. God is not constrained by what to us are impossibilities, logical or physical.

1. So, if god could do something about evil, but doesn’t know about it - then god is not omniscient. Therefore god is not god.
2. Or, if god knows about it, but cannot do anything about it - then god is not omnipotent. Therefore god is not god.
3. And finally, if god knows about it, could do something about it, but doesn’t care to - then god does not love us. Therefore god is not god.

This leaves us with only three conclusions. (From 1&2) Either what we have called ‘god’ is simply a very powerful, but not all-powerful, alien entity to which we owe at best, our gratitude, or (from 3) the all-powerful god is a sadist, and any relationship we have with it is unrequited, and abusive.

And finally, the conclusion that god doesn’t exist, and never did.

I wrote a detailed reply to this, and to your original question as to through whom sin entered the world, in which I give it to you straight, but when I tried to post, I was prevented. The whole site seemed to go down, or something. Apparently, God has his own censorship board. So I agreed to post my reply with the objectionable parts removed, and the site came back online. So here is my censored reply to your question:

The xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx knowing xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx this then x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Regards

If you read what I put above, you will see that the end is not destruction, but the pruning of the less fit, which allows the fittest to thrive.

All of the animal life works the same way. Why else do you think we see various animals challenge themselves collectively to various migrations to breeding ground, when there are good breeding ground available for less trouble?

Regards
DL

I wrote a detailed reply to this, and to your original question as to through whom sin entered the world, in which I give it to you straight, but when I tried to post, I was prevented. The whole site seemed to go down, or something. Apparently, God has his own censorship board. So I agreed to post my reply with the objectionable parts removed, and the site came back online. So here is my censored reply to your question:

The xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx knowing xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx this then x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Regards
[/quote]
If you write that much garbage to a fairly straight, non-controversial question, you will be a useless addition to the forum.

I was hoping to see intelligence. Oh well.

Regards
DL

Thanks for this, but you must have missed this in my post.

“Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in,”

Regards
DL

Doesn’t existence itself entail duality? If so, the Garden of Eden story is a myth of our fall into self-consciousness. The notion of sin was a consequence of the idealized-self’s repulsion at embodied animality.

I agree that it is all a myth.

A myth that Christians have used to justify many murders and an ongoing homophobic and misogynous religion the does not believe in equality of all souls.

Yes. we do seem to be living in a dualistic universe. I have found no exception yet.

Regards
DL

here’s another approach. the feeling of ‘sin’ (although it wasn’t called ‘sin’ yet) was first made possible by having to publically admit to committing a socially prohibited infraction, to committing a social taboo. ‘sin’ is then the state or experience of shame before the other. this kind of experience was possible long before any religious doctrine began to take shape in a culture. so then the basis for the concept of ‘sin’ is shame extended and projected to mean something of cosmic and metaphysical significance.

this ‘repulsion’ you speak of isn’t a rejection of the animality per se, but instead the frustration experienced when having to restrain socially prohibited behaviors so not to experience shame before your peoples.

and all this mess is a necessary facet of the pace social evolution has over the precursors that are forced to adapt to changing ESS (evolutionary stable strategies). example; you can’t rape or pillage anymore because such behavior isn’t conducive to social cooperation… but you sure as shit want to. you’re repulsed at the fact that you’re obligated to control and restrain those impulses (that aren’t your fault), but you aren’t disgusted by them. you aren’t offended by that animal nature that’s being out-paced by social evolution. frustrated, but not contemptuous.

see how all this is fully free of talk of ‘dualism’ and ‘god’ and ‘gardens of edens’ and stuff?

Really? Must I point out the dualisms involved in your analysis above? But yeah I never meant to imply that the myth occurred in a social vacuum. It grew out of the mythology of the civilizations of the fertile crescent and was elaborated and redacted by multiple authors and editors over centuries. You imagine that your reductive analysis brings something new to the room when in fact all you have done is move the furniture around.

you can, but you gotta be veeeeery careful how you use that word ‘dualism’, cuz i’m poised to strike at that word cuz i hate it. it’s one of the mortal enemies of meaningful philosophy.

anyway behind every anthropomorphic religion there’s a hidden anthropological explanation for how and why that particular religion has the features that it does. so the religion tells us nothing about the cosmological, ontological, or epistemological nature of the universe/reality/existence, only about the nuanced nature of the psyche of the people who invented said religion. in fact you can almost rank a people’s spiritual stamina and constitution according to their religions. here’s a list in the order of sickest to healthiest of the major religions:

christianity; absolutely depraved masochistic nonsense
judaism; absolutely depraved masochistic nonsense with a silly chip on its shoulder
islam; nonsense with great big balls
buddhism; chilled out, easy going nonsense
hinduism; a magnificent party of socially stratifying nonsense
paganism; whitey’s version of that same party
taoism; pretty fuckin realistic as far as religions can go, but still nonsense
spinozism; the end-game. the first and the last. the alpha and the omega. a cold, eternal wind bloweth through it.

Spinoza is cool. Your argument is fun but thin as fresh blown snot.

When did you transcend your own psyche so that you can stand outside it and tell us how things really are? Or do you admit that these are merely your opinions based on limited knowledge and experience?

Let’s see; Xianity is at the top of you dualistic list of offending religions. Could it be that Xianity was your cradle religion?

Damn straight spinz wuz cool. Hey yo you know them niggas almost kilt his ass? Goddamn Jews stabbed em, bro. Real shit. He even kept the cloak (spinz rocked a cloak) with the knife tear in it as a souvenir.

jewishreviewofbooks.com/article … l-spinoza/

I have a deep feeling that the jew bible is evil.
The problem is that the stolen texts still have value.

The bible is evil if you read it literally.

If not, it retains it value as a myth and is quite good for thought, since that is what it was created for.

Without Midrash, the Christian way, the bible is garbage as it has Christians adoring a genocidal prick of a god.

Regards
DL

Isn’t a bit overkill to call it ‘evil’ though? There would be any number of reasons why the story tellers and the writers that worked with them would invent a religion that portrays man in such a forlorn and lost state of misery. Most likely such a theme only reflected their collective anxiety and inner turmoil… something they finally came to believe was intended by god. Or maybe it was more conspicuous… like the dudes were already trying to make all the other guys feel miserable so they could be more easily managed, as well as feel a dependency for/on the higher ranking members of the clique. Probably a little of both; a group of depressed people trying to manipulate each other for rights and privileges out there in the desert villages. But ‘evil’? I think that’s giving them too much credit, but you see more than I… Daniel you’re a star.

in the above case i use a principle from my own school of analytical nihilism known as ‘promethean75’s razor’. and what this principle allows me to do is disclose the distinction between sensible metaphysical statements about empirical objects and processes, and nonsensical metaphysical statements about concepts about empirical objects and processes. what i have discovered is that there are far less sensible metaphysical statements that can be made, then philosophers and theologians like to believe. my duty is to identify that very thin line between such kinds of statements and serve the philosopher/theologian who makes them, a bologna sandwich.

that beind said, there is absolutely nothing that can be derived directly from experience that could sensibly lead a philosopher/theologian to taking any of the available religious doctrines seriously for even a moment. now because there is almost certainly no ‘god’, and, all things must have causes, there must be something other than the existence of the thing believed to exist through the kinds of metaphysical reasoning that leads philosophers/theologians to think it does, that is responsible for making them believe the things they do. in other words, it isn’t because ‘god’ exists that people think ‘god’ exists. something else is responsible for this hermeneutic intellectual process, and the bad news is that it’s almost without exception drawn from and out of a deeply entrenched psychological anxiety… and the even worser news is that this anxiety is itself rooted in the general constitutional weakness and fragility of the human psyche.

the only thing of interest to me regarding the history of religions is an anthropological and sociological examination of the kind of environment in which the religion evolved. the kinds of influences responsible for leading a particular type of people to believing a particular version of this kind of nonsensical metaphysical thinking. this general investigation falls under the rubric of historical materialism, first, and then from that basis particular facts of analysis can be ascertained. for instance, why christians believed in ‘this’ kind of god while hindus believed in ‘these’ kinds of gods, etc. or why this religion permits polygamy while this one doesn’t. or why this religion holds strongly to the notion of ‘sin’ while that other one does not. so on and so forth.

as you can see once i’ve established that both a logical/empirical proof for the existence of ‘god’ is impossible, and have as well dismissed the possibility of revelatory knowledge of ‘god’ (there are mental hospitals and opium dens for folks like that), i’m still at liberty, as an analytical nihilist, to seek the actual causes for why and how people believe in ‘god(s)’ and offer them, at the least, a bologna sandwich.

I’m just now seeing this post for the first time. Yeah yeah, your conclusion re: theology is similar to Prismatic567 i.e. God is impossible. Now in this instance we’re talking about sin. It isn’t obvious that sin is directly related to God, though, if you’re like me, you learned about sin in Christian circles where they were studying Bible texts in which the figure of God appears. Which do you suppose came first the image of sin or the image of God?

sin is just a religious extension of the feeling of shame when being in violation of a social more. that’s all it is, man. first there was embarassment, shame, remorse and regret before our family, peers and social group in general. then that feeling gets expanded to include the same kind of feelings ‘before god’, who is thought to be the arbiter of the morality that is in violation.

so what ended up being called ‘sin’ existed long before any image of god, as human beings were capable of experiencing that embarrassment and shame and stuff long before they developed the cognitive capacity for the abstract reasoning involved in metaphysical thinking. hell, even before they had a phonetic language they were experiencing these feelings. a dude comes running at you with a club right after you take his rabbit off the spit and you’re like ‘shit i musta done something wrong’… but you don’t think in these words. instead it’s a feeling of fear and unrest that’s associated with the act of taking the rabbit. you learn not to do that, because you don’t wanna piss him off. you need this guy on your side. so this is an example of how the pre-linguistic experience of ‘sin’ develops. it’s mediated between people in groups and has its first appearance in the feeling of fear. and this part is important; notice i didn’t say it originates in ‘fight response’, but the fear response. the origin of morality belongs to those who experience shame when they are overpowered by a force that doesn’t permit them to act as they have. this is morality’s crudest and most primitive appearance. the guy with the club certainly didn’t feel any shame, right? i mean he wasn’t like ‘yo you ain’t supposed to do that, bro’ because they didn’t have language yet. only much, much later was that instinctive social dynamic ever developed into an abstract ‘civil’ contract that everyone agreed with.

the feeling of sin isn’t ‘damn i shouldn’t have done that’, originally, but rather ‘shit i didn’t get away with that like i thought i would… and damn if that nigga didn’t call me on it.’

that changes everything, don’t it. and here you were thinking ‘man’ was a nice guy. hell no he ain’t. he’s an inherently despicable creature who acts of his own self interests. the original homo’s erectus was stirnerite through and through. just a carrier of selfish genes. and that’s why you gotta know this shit before you can begin an honest investigation into the problem of ‘man’. and believing in ‘god’ ain’t gonna do nothin but muddle up this investigation.