...but what about the children.

Many christians think it's ok for children to pay for the crimes/sins/whatevers of their for-bearers.

Why?
ee

[Kate]

Someone else to blame?

Its like the issue with national debt, the current generation doesnt ever think they can pay it off, so they leave it to another generation...

Many christians think it's ok for children to pay for the crimes/sins/whatevers of their for-bearers.

That's a very, very uncommon belief among Christains.

bookthrasher wrote:

That's a very, very uncommon belief among Christains.

no, its the most common belief...
christians think that we're doomed for hell without jesus because we must pay for the sin of some bitch who ate an apple...

If you take the story literally.

It makes so much more sense as an allegory, though.

Oh, and a finicky point: Eve could have eaten as many Fruits of Knowledge as she wanted. She never promised anything.

well, most christians do take the story literally...

Maybe in red states.

Off hand, the Presbyterians and R. Catholics both have expressed the belief that the truth of the bible does not necessarily flow from historical accuracy. In other words, that Genesis is allegorical.

that's what bothers me... they're always fighting over whats literal and what's not

Just have to keep your denominations straight, which is admittedly tough for an outsider. The Bible just simply isn't written like a textbook, so it's not obvious how to interepret things.

It's a habit of literalist circles to worship the Bible alongside God. The old slippery slope fallacy: If Genesis wasn't literal, than Jesus wasn't real.

A good rule of thumb if you want to approach the Bible rationally: Take Scripture at its natural sense, unless the natural sense is nonsense, in which case you must find some other sense.

[Sternwallow]

BookThrasher wrote

Oh, and a finicky point: Eve could have eaten as many Fruits of Knowledge as she wanted. She never promised anything.

Finicky point:
"Gen.3
1. [2] And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
2. [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."
She knew the rule well enough to misquote it to the serpent.

The book states quite clearly that all of the children of Adam and Eve and all of their children's children will be punished at the very least by exclusion from the garden forever.

Take the Egyptian Book of the Dead at its natural sense, unless the natural sense is nonsense, in which case you must find some other sense.

TRA forum

Take the Federal Register at its natural sense, unless the natural sense is nonsense, in which case you must find some other sense.

If the natural sense and rational alternatives are all nonsense or clearly lies, your burden to force sense on it is lifted. Those who make the claim that a given statement is true are responsible for proving it, not the reader. If the natural sense is nonsense, it is not the word of God who is capable of clear communication. If the book contains nonsense statements or lies, it is not perfect hence is not the word of God.

evident_enigma wrote

Many christians think it's ok for children to pay for the crimes/sins/whatevers of their for-bearers.

Why?

I must have skipped that section of the Required Belief Manual(tm). I'd like to have my children pay for all the food they ate.

[calpurnpiso]

evident_enigma wrote

Many christians think it's ok for children to pay for the crimes/sins/whatevers of their for-bearers.

Why?
ee

Remember when Zappy the god of Genesis punished the mud-man Adams and his Rib-woman after they accepted a fruit from a talking snake kicking them out of Edem telling them you and your children will bear this ORIGINAL 'sin"...you'll have to work for a living, suffer pain, wombs will have to suffer pain when expulsing childrem from their "edem" etc etc.....

Since then the masochistic Christ-psychotics have been feeling this awful guilt and desperation to gain "salvation"....:)

"Take Scripture at its natural sense, unless the natural sense is nonsense, in which case you must find some other sense."

I like this. It's literal, except where by being literal it's incorrect, nonsensical, or morally corrupt. Then it's allegorical. Can I have the cake you're eating, too?

If the natural sense is nonsense, it is not the word of God who is capable of clear communication. If the book contains nonsense statements or lies, it is not perfect hence is not the word of God.

Ah, but God didn't write the Bible.

I like this. It's literal, except where by being literal it's incorrect, nonsensical, or morally corrupt. Then it's allegorical. Can I have the cake you're eating, too?

You don't seem to like the taste, so I'll keep it for myself, if you don't mind. And is it really that outlandish for something to deviate from a default position?

In any science class, one of the first things you learn to do is decipher when a solution is physically impossible. When you get on, it means you made a mistake somewhere. Same thing with interpreting Scripture.

Genesis 2:17

"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for the day that you eat of it you shall die."

Genesis 2:22

"And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man."

Chronologically speaking, the deal was with Adam. Eve wasn't around yet.

Also notice that Eve experienced no side-effects from the fruit until after Adam ate some as well. Further,

3: 18

"[God said to Adam] "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you..."

He says nothing of that sort to Eve.