Wednesday, 25 March 2009


OK, so Adam and Eve were created "good" by god, and what they did was "good" until they ate the fruit, right? Well, after they ate the fruit is when they realized they were naked and were embarrassed by it. Apparently, before they ate the fruit, they were naked and they realized afterwards that it is bad to be naked. But, they were wholly good before eating the fruit even though they were naked.

This creates a contradiction. Either they were good when they were naked and it is still good to be naked, which modern Xians don't agree with and certainly those who wrote the Bible didn't agree with. Or, they were not good when they were naked, meaning that there was sin before they ate the apple. Which is it?

There is another way, of course, but it requires the theist to resort to relative or situational morality. This, however, is anathema to most Xians in that they claim to believe in absolute morality, so this option is not actually open, no matter how often they cling to relative morality when it suits their whims.


Tiger said...

When we covered sex in Confirmation Class, I was told that Adam and Eve were not ashamed of showing their unspeakables because back then, sex was always pure and holy (aka only for making babies) and thus nakedness was not a sin. After Adam and Eve became aware that sex could be a sin, they were ashamed of it and the parts used for it and thus clothed themselves.

Rafael said...

Just goes to show you that they have no clue. Let's face it. Everything about religion is a fabrication. Someone made it up.

Notice that the concept of
Original Sin
is also not covered in Genesis. I've looked, but it just says that they ate the fruit and were cast out. It doesn't specifically state that all decendents will be born with original sin.

Sin it self by definition is breaking a law of God. How can babies do this simply by just existing?

Joshua said...

This isn't a good one. A simple reading of the text is that it is talking about a loss of innocence. There's nothing wrong with little children being naked but as they get older that lack of care about nakedness goes away. That's the sort of thing that seems to be happening here.

Your point about Original Sin is of course correct. But the entire doctrine is so reprehensible that whether or not it is in text really doesn't matter that much.