Two articles appear below:
1 Original Sin Debunked
De Kretser
2 The Science of Original sin Anonymous
___________________________________
ORIGINAL SIN DEBUNKED
Brian de Kretser
(Investigator 139, 2011
July)
"Original Sin" is one of the major tenets of the
Christian faith. It
could be taken to mean the sin that Adam and Eve committed by
disobeying God and, as a consequence this first sin, the supposed
descendants of Adam are tainted with it and can only be redeemed
through the grace of God through his son Jesus Christ who died on the
cross to save mankind.
Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the "Tree of Knowledge" in the Garden of
Eden, and were thrown out by God for disobedience [i.e. god had told
them not to eat of that tree]. This story is found in the book of
Genesis in the Old Testament.
This sin of Adam was the cause of the "Fall of Man" and is
identified by the Catholic Encyclopedia also as the "Origin of Death".
It is a foundation pillar of the Christian faith.
Adam's sin is passed along in the same way in which God made man
procreate [i.e. through sex] to all mankind that followed, hence we are
all guilty by association.
Then God set about removing this "original sin" by the death of his son
J.C. on the cross. But this is in dispute:
The son was produced by a virgin (Mary). Joseph the official husband
did not have a clue until an angel came to him in a dream and all was
revealed. But many historians have questioned this and written that
J.C. is the bastard child of Mary who had illicit relations with a
Roman archer named Panthera.
Christians claim that baptism would remove the "original sin" but this
is rubbish. If it did there would be no reason for J.C. to die on the
cross.
One must ask the question, if there is an omni-everything god, surely
he would nave foreseen what would happen. Why would he plant this "Tree
of Knowledge" and then call attention to it by telling Adam and Eve
about it.
Now we come to the serpent. How did he get there? First God made Adam
from dust, then Eve from Adam's rib. It follows that he also made the
snake as there was no one else around making things at that time. The
serpent could walk upright and speak. It was after he tempted Eve that
God cursed him to slither on his belly and eat dust.
God then kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden and the two then went
about procreating mankind. They had two boys, Cain and Abel.
Let us now dismantle this whole fairy story — one so unbelievable and
fantastically stupid it puts to shame any honest fairy story.
There was no Garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve who transgressed by eating
non-existent fruit, tempted by a non-existent serpent, therefore no
"Original sin". It's mythology only. It's the same old story found in
many countries and religions from around the world long before the Jews
and Christians got hold of it. "Original sin" has been debated for
centuries; a few religions and cultures support it, most do not.
Modern experts argue that none of us are born in sin as the story is
only mythical anyway — and thus without "original sin" there would be
no need for any redemption through the mythical crucifixion of J.C. In
simple words, if there is no sin, there is no need for a savior, and no
need for us to be saved.
But Christians cling to this born-in-sin propaganda, for without it
Christianity would collapse. It is by this crippling belief in the
first place, that Christianity uses to control mankind, with the
promise of a savior who by his mythical sacrifice will wash away this
mythical "original sin". But outside of Christianity and a few other
die-hard cults, we are FREE, not born in sin and Do not need a savior
of any kind and do not need redemption.
In conclusion, this diabolical story of sin, like most others in the
Bible is an insult to the intelligence and is believed only by
superstitious cranks who fear offending their god and not being
received into a mythical kingdom of heaven, wherever it is?
Dawkins summed it up succinctly when he stated that religion is a
"virus of the mind" in other words Mental Sickness.
Brian de Kretser
Institute for Research into Religions.
Darwin, Australia
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
THE SCIENCE OF ORIGINAL SIN
Anonymous
(Investigator 140, 2011
September)
ORIGINAL SIN
The term "original sin" refers to Adam's and Eve's disobedience in
eating from the "forbidden fruit" and the consequences of death,
suffering, sickness, and human inability to behave ethically. (Romans
3:9; 5:12, 17; 7:23; Ephesians 2:1-3; Matthew 15:18-19)
Original sin is linked to other doctrines such as human origins, the
supernatural, and the virgin birth.
HUMAN ORIGINS
The question of whether humankind began with two people in a garden was
debated previously and summarized in #90. The essential points were:
1.
Mitochondrial DNA suggests that all humans trace back to one
original woman — this does not prove the Adam & Eve story but is as
close as we can currently get scientifically.
2.
In
1996 science demolished the belief that humans evolved from
Neanderthals. Genesis, in agreement with this, implies there were
people who resembled early humans but were unrelated to Adam and Eve.
(See #71 p. 5)
3.
DNA evidence proving human descent from earlier hominids is
unavailable.
4.
Inbreeding, if humans began with two people, is not a serious
objection since if the two founders were "divinely created" they would
have no harmful genes or harmful traits to pass on. Focus
magazine
examines the question of two people in today's situation multiplying by
inbreeding and says: "But in time, new mutations would occur, and these
would broaden the gene pool. Genetic fitness would therefore tend to
increase through the generations. Eventually the population would
evolve to be as healthy as if it had descended from many — rather than
just two — founders." (May 1997, p.46)
SIN INFECTS
ALL
"Original Sin", according to the Bible, led to Adam and Eve's death and
to all the medical and ethical problems of humankind. The human heart
(the emotional centres), too, became "deceitful above all things and
beyond cure." (Psalm 51:5; Jeremiah 17:9; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22;
Romans 5:12-18)
For "original sin" to infect all humans, it must have altered the
original human genome with the alterations being transmitted by
reproduction, making all humans subject to disease, death and sin.
The mechanisms that changed human nature could have included:
1.
Expulsion from Eden: The harsher environment outside produced
physical and emotional stress (3:17-19) and contact with mutagenic
chemicals.
2.
Altered nutrition: The first humans had to eat from a certain
tree to avoid death (3:22-23), but access was cut off.
3.
The new science of "epigenetics" has shown that physical and
mental stress, and access to food and types of food, can change one's
genes and affect subsequent generations. (New Scientist, 6 November,
2010—"Sins of the fathers") Presumably this mechanism acted also on the
first humans.
4.
Co-habitation with human-like "ape men" (4:14; 6:1-4) would have
introduced genetic defects into the human genome and susceptibility to
diseases. Yong (2011) reports that genes of non-African humans are
1%-4% Neanderthal. The Australian reports: "everyone has between 250
and 300 DNA variations that stop a gene from working normally and
between 50 and 100 of these have been associated with a known medical
disorder." (October 29, 2010, p. 3)
A related issue
is that of human longevity. Genesis records that Adam's
offspring lived for centuries. If true, science should eventually
discover changes to the human genome that could enable humans to live
indefinitely. (Useful preliminary reading is Kirkwood, 2010)
SUPERNATURAL REALM
The "serpent" in Genesis 3, which deceived Eve, spoke, reasoned, and
had information about God.
These features suggest we should understand
the serpent as a manifestation from the supernatural. Other Scriptures
support this interpretation — John 8:44; II Corinthians 4:4; 11:3;
Ephesians 2:1-3; Revelation 12:9; 20:2.
I argued for the existence of the supernatural including demons, angels
and God in:
•
#102 Demonic Powers and Science;
•
#104 More On Demons;
•
#125 Mary and Gabriel, Evidence Sufficient;
•
#126 Gravity and the Supernatural;
•
#137 God Exists.
I gave several
possible scientific identifications of the supernatural
realm, but opted for extra dimensions beyond the three, up/down,
left/right, forward/backwards, that we observe.
By analogy with a two-dimensional "Flatland", such as a ceiling on
which a person can cast any-shape shadow he chooses, I concluded that
"an entity manifesting himself in a lower dimension can imitate
whatever shapes exist in that lower dimension."
It follows that a 4-dimensional entity revealing itself to a
3-dimentional human could also assume any shape it chooses — whether as
an angel, or snake, or anything else.
VIRGIN BIRTH
The virgin-birth doctrine begins in Genesis 3:15 where a "seed", i.e.
descendant, of the woman will be wounded by the "serpent" but will
finally crush the serpent. No ordinary human can do that, just as Adam
and Eve could not. Genesis 3, therefore, implies a future birth of a
god-like person without a human father.
Isaiah 7:14 foretold a "sign" consisting of a maiden giving birth.
Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14 from the 2nd-century BC Greek
Septuagint Old Testament which uses the word "virgin". Matthew says
that the prediction is fulfilled in Mary:
All
this took
place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through
the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they
shall name him Emmanuel," which means, God is with us." (1:22-23)
Critics
claim that the Hebrew "almah" in Isaiah 7 means maiden i.e.
unmarried young woman, not "virgin". "Almah", however, can mean either,
depending on context. Isaiah speaks of the girl positively as doing
God's will, whereas an unmarried pregnant girl would be a fornicator
and, by ancient standards, deserve execution.
These points were debated in Investigator 92-96:
|
|
#92 |
- In
Reference to "Isaiah's Virgin"
|
#93 |
- Reply to
Dowling on "Isaiah's Virgin"
|
#94 |
|
|
#95 |
|
|
#96 |
The Old
Testament
indicates in many verses that women produce babies
only after having sex with men. Therefore, by using the word "virgin"
the translators of the Septuagint showed they recognized, two centuries
before Jesus came, that Isaiah was referring to the "Messiah" and
future
destroyer of the "serpent".
THE TALMUD
The earliest available Jewish comment about Jesus outside of the New
Testament is in the Talmud and in Midrash. Hoffman (1984) defines these
as follows:
- The Talmud
[is] a
massive compilation embodying the Mishnah (oral teaching) and the
Gemara (collections of discussions on the Mishnah) formed during the
fifth century CE.
- Midrash
(Heb:
investigation) [is] scriptural exegesis and exposition, containing
Haggadah (edifying sermons and folklore, as also found in Gemara and
rabbinical writings) and Halakha (legally binding decisions derived
from the Torah by rabbinical logic).
Portions of the
Talmud originally written in the 2nd century CE
occasionally refer to Jesus. Hoffman summarizes what the Talmud says
about Jesus ("Yeshua"):
Yeshua
of
Nazareth practiced sorcery and led people astray from Jewish doctrine…
he was a trickster and a heretic who mocked the words of the Pharisees.
He had five disciples…who healed the sick in his name. He taught that
he had not come to add or take away from the Law. He was hanged on the
eve of Passover as a heretic…he was the bastard son of an adulteress
and a Roman father named Pandera or Panthere…for forty days before his
execution a herald was sent out looking for those who would plead in
his favour but could find no one to do so… Yeshua would have no share
in the world to come. (pp 39-40)
De Kretser (#139)
cites Celsus' The True Word (c.178 CE)
regarding
Jesus being a "bastard". Celsus, however, had no independent
information but relied on the Talmud. Although Pandera/Panthere was a
Roman name it's probable the Talmud intended a pun on the Greek word
"parthenos" meaning virgin. If so, then Pandera is fictitious, a name
chosen to produce a pun.
The Talmud, despite being anti Christian, confirms that Jews in the
second century C.E. accepted the historicity of Jesus, Mary, Jesus'
disciples, the crucifixion, the occurrence of miracles including
healing, and that Christians believed in a virgin birth. The Talmud
therefore (along with other evidence) refutes conspiracy theorists who
claim Jesus never existed and Christianity began in the 4th century.
The Talmud, however, is not objective history — it states, for example,
that Jesus is being tortured in hell.
What's the evidence regarding Mary?
BIRTH NARRATIVE
In Mary and Gabriel, A Meeting that Shaped History (#121) I
argued that:
"The
Nativity
stories (Luke 1-2; Matthew 1-2) include
accurate history, confirmed astronomy, testable biology, fulfilled
prophecy, and plausible supernatural components..."
"Accurate
history"
includes Herod, the enrolment (census), the
existence of Bethlehem and Nazareth, and various dates.
"Confirmed astronomy" is the star of Bethlehem as a twice over
conjunction of Venus and Jupiter (#81) on dates consistent with Jesus'
death at age 33 in 33 CE. (Steel 1999)
Testable biology is:
a.
The length of human pregnancy. The Romans didn't know how long
human pregnancy lasts and estimated 6 to 11 months. Mary's pregnancy [actually "Elizabeth's
pregnancy "
— Ed.] as
calculated from Luke was 9 months.
b.
Fetuses in the womb can hear human voices. This was disputed
around 1900 (#96) but subsequently confirmed. (New Scientist, 9 July,
2011, p. 17)
Fulfilled
prophecy includes:
a.
Luke 1:48 "From now on all generations will call me blessed…"
Mary is probably the most mentioned woman of the past 2000 years!
b.
Luke 2:11 says that Mary became mother to "the Messiah the Lord".
And Zechariah 9:9-10 which is recognized as a prophecy about the
Messiah, states: "And he will proclaim peace to the nations. His rule
will extend from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the
earth."
Anyone who denies the virgin birth needs to consider the impossibility
of successfully doing all of the following:
1.
Predict a miracle and keep the prediction going for centuries;
2.
Get insignificant peasants centuries later to successfully stage
a false fulfilment while opposed by the whole political/religious
establishment;
3.
Include scientific and historical points that won't be confirmed
for about 2000 years;
4.
Name several nonentities who won't enter public consciousness for
a century but who afterwards become known worldwide.
This whole
scenario surpasses human ingenuity and smacks of
supernatural oversight!
NO SIN?
De Kretser (#139) claims that "none of us are born in sin…and thus
without original sin there would be no need for any redemption…"
The Bible disagrees and declares everyone deficient — "all have
sinned". (Romans 3:9-18, 23) This is our genetic inheritance "in the
flesh". (Romans 7:18; 8:3) Proof occurs whenever people become sexually
immoral, steal, speak lies or other inappropriate words (James 3:2),
murder, extort, fail to repay debt, kidnap, take bribes, lack
self-control (e.g. gambling, smoking, drunkenness, drugs), or fail in
generosity, "good Samaritanism", selflessness, and compassion.
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves" (I John 1:8)
Anyone can confirm this by consulting newspapers, television news, law
reports, psychiatry, psychology, and history.
The ongoing consequences
of sin include poverty, sickness, suffering and despair; and the
long-term consequence is the "end of the world". (II Peter 3:7-12) The
Bible says humans must either suffer God's punishment, or accept the
"redeemer" punished on their behalf. (John 3:16; Romans 5:6)
DAWKINS
Richard Dawkins has claimed "religion is a virus of the mind".
Scripturally, however, everyone is misguided, deceived, and "powerless"
to do right, and the "virus" is two-fold:
(1)
Defective
DNA ruined by original sin, and
(2)
Malignant influence
from the supernatural realm.
REFERENCES:
De Kretser, B. Original Sin Debunked, Investigator #139, July
2011
Hoffman, R.J. 1984 Jesus Outside the Gospels, Prometheus
Kirkwood, T. Why can't we live forever? Scientific American,
September 2010, pp 24-31
Steel, D. 1999 Eclipse, Headline, p. 23.
Yong, E. Our hybrid origins, New Scientist, 30 July 2011, pp
34-38