Talk:Original sin/from Talk:Fall of man

I fail to see why this should be a separate article, along with Garden of Eden and Original Sin. "Garden of Eden" needs to include both stuff about Creation and what Adam and Eve did and different understandings of the consequences. Or nix the Garden of Eden site too and discuss the theology under Original Sin. The Original Sin article can have a 'See also' pointing to Unification Church/Fall of man[?] to cover their unique theology, or it can be covered in a separate paragraph in the Original sin article.

My main point is that this general subject area is getting fragmented into too many topics that aren't really that different from each other. --Wesley

As is usual, I agree with you. But why not let the articles stand as separate for a week or so, and see if the stubs inspire fuller write-ups? Ed Poor

Because if they do, there will be a lot of overlap, and then some poor slob will have to merge them all. I'd rather have redirects so everyone who wants to contribute can do it in one article and avoid the inevitable merge later. If they were really separate topics it might make sense to have them separate, but if they're synonyms, it will just lead to redundancy. Plus if a huge controversy plays out on topic A that results in a workable compromise, that might then need to get ported to topic B, which may risk rehashing it all over again, if someone who cares was watching B but not A. But that's just my take, I could be dead wrong about this. --Wesley

Please feel free to make the changes you have outlined. :-) Ed Poor

--- Here is my take on what should happen. We should keep all three articles. "Garden of Eden" should discuss the "Garden of Eden" (what is it, did it really exist, if so where was it probably located, etc.), with a pointer to the article on the fall. "Fall of man" should discuss the fall in detail, with a pointer to "original sin". "Original sin" should discuss original sin.

These three really are separate topics. For example, discussion of traductionism vs. creationism belongs on "original sin", not "Garden of Eden" or "Fall of man". Likewise, discussion of infralapsarianism vs. supralapsarianism, the serpent seed doctrine, etc., belongs on "Fall of man", not "Original sin" or "Garden of Eden". And "a number of possible sites have been suggested for where the Garden of Eden, if it ever actually existed, may have been located...", and "what happened to the Garden? how come it isn't still there today -- the Bible never mentions it being destroyed?" belong on "Garden of Eden", not "Original sin" or "Fall of man". -- SJK

I agree with SJK. These really are separate articles. -- Zoe