User talk:AstoVidatu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Original sin

I didn't read your post to me as confrontational, so don't worry about that.

I want to explain about article talk pages first. Their purpose is really for the development of article content. Had you been presenting the ideas of some notable religious group on the subject that would have been one thing. In that case the logic of the train of thought would have been completely irrelevant. If it could be shown to be an actual theological opinion held by an actual sect, then it should be included regardless. But if it's just a thought of your own, it can't go in the article no matter how much sense it makes; that would be original research.

There's this huge temptation, especially it seems on the talk pages of religion articles, to get into these theological debates or exploration of interesting speculations. That's not really what they're for though, and it can drown out article content-related discussion. You said you didn't know where to put it -- the answer to that is that you don't put it anywhere. (Although it might possibly be discussed on user talk pages.) There are other forums for that kind of thing, but that's not Wikipedia's purpose. Even the community pages are geared mainly toward developing the encyclopedia.

Your train of thought goes wrong right at the beginning. It is of course true that reason allows us to distinguish between good and evil, but it's self-evident that it also allows us to make many other distinctions. Even if we grant that Adam was incapable of distinguishing between good and evil -- evil was, after all, outside his experience -- that does not mean he was incapable of making any other distinction. It clearly does not follow that the inability to make this one distinction robs him of humanity; certainly not considering his newly-created, immature state.

But that by itself wouldn't distinguish Adam from the animals anyway. Adam is a not an animal because unlike them he was 1) formed by the hand of God, whereas the animals are brought into existence by a spoken word; 2) made in the image of God; and 3) had the breath of life breathed into him by God himself. That is what made him human, not the Fall. Otherwise, it might have been any animal eating that fruit, and suffering the same consequences. Adam's disobedience had the consequences it did precisely becuase of his special nature. He alone was capable of disobeying God, and when he did it was disastrous. The serpent might as well have eaten the fruit himself, and saved himself the trouble of tempting Eve.

One more minor error is that you go beyond the text when you say that nakedness is "evil". The word used in Genesis is "ashamed"; nakedness was shameful now that mankind knew sin. Before that it was a sign of innocence; this is how it's taken by all the Church Fathers. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Personal Safety

I don't see any real danger from it. Although I have heard of admins who have tried to stop people from finding their personal details after bad encounters with vandals. But I feel like at this point that would be a bit paranoid for me. What do you think? Λυδαcιτγ 22:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

A nice standardized message for you...

Welcome, AstoVidatu!

I noticed your work on User talk:Audacity, and thought I'd welcome you to Wikipedia. My name is Dan, a.k.a. Audacity. Thank you for your contributions, and I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Some other hints and tips:

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Or come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

Thanks again for contributing to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.

Λυδαcιτγ 05:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)