God most certainly did not create mankind with original sin. That isn't taught anywhere in the whole deal.

"It's the goof of all time. Look, but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, but don't swallow."

I like how I post one silly picture and it turns into this.

Trolling successful.

If you believe the Christian/King James Bible, he gave man free will, and didn't make man perfect in his image. What the hell else did you expect to happen?

Would you rather have been created without the option to choose?

I don’t have words to describe the sadness I felt in my heart this week as I watched Cardinal George Pell Archbishop of Sydney, Australia—a man rumored to be on the short list at the next conclave, and “conservative” extraordinaire—hem and haw and then go right ahead and deny that Adam and Eve are anything more than mythical constructs in a religious story told for religious purposes. This took place during a debate between Cardinal Pell and atheist Richard Dawkins on the popular Australian television program Q&A. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD1QHO_AVZA)

Of course, His Eminence admitted that somewhere along the evolutionary scale there must have been a “first man” but, yes, that first man did indeed evolve from apes.

“Did humans evolve from apes?” asked an incredulous Tony Jones, host of the Q&A debate.

“Yes, probably,” Pell replied “probably—well from Neanderthals.”

“But you accept that humans evolved from non-humans, so at what point did the soul come about?” Jones asked.

Cardinal Pell: “The Soul is the principle of life. Whenever the soul was able to communicate then we had the first human. But if there are humans, there must be a first one.”

Jones: “Are you suggesting a sort of Garden of Eden scenario with an actual Adam and Eve?”

“Well Adam and Eve are terms that mean ‘life’ and ‘earth’. Like an Everyman. It’s a beautiful, sophisticated, mythological account. It’s not science. But it’s there to tell us two or three things. First of all that God created the world and universe. Secondly that the key to the whole universe is humans. And thirdly it’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world….It’s a religious story told for religious purposes.”

Whenever these anamorphous, modernist chestnuts are rolled out of the fire by one of our progressive churchmen, I find myself first wincing and then hoping the atheist fellow sitting across the table somehow failed to grasp the ramifications. Dawkins did not: “Ah, well, I’m curious to know,” replied the atheist, “if Adam and Eve never existed where did Original Sin come from?”

The thing is we were not created, we evolved. In which step of the human evolution did we acquired this apparently hereditable property known as the original sin? Or do you really dismiss the whole evidence of evolution?

Yep, pretty much. Too many holes in it for me to accept it so easily.

Yep, pretty much. Too many holes in it for me to accept it so easily.

I think we made a good unintentional team. I got 'em riled up in the main forum while that ridiculous "God is on our side" thread wasn't moved to the PWR for days, then you come in and start this. Worked quite well. Think we can get one of 'em to commit religious martyr suicide? You know; for our sins, or YouTube hits, something.

Yep, pretty much. Too many holes in it for me to accept it so easily.

Really? or you just effin' with me?

You dismiss a hundred plus years of scientific findings with a wave of the hand, but accept that we came from just a man and a woman who had just 2 sons and no daughters, and that the woman was seduced by a talking snake, and now aproximately 450,000 babies per day that arrive to this word are born in original sin because of that stupid couple and the talking snake? Do you really believe that?

Using a scientific method to prove something that's not scientific will not work. Science can't prove what is or is not moral, should we induce that morality is non-existent and begin an orgy bloodbath? If your mind is programmed strictly to believe only scientific thinking then you are limited in your thought process. Some see angels in the architecture, others call those people fools. I'm the former.