No Adam = no Original Sin - right? (moral, genesis, moral)

[crystalonyx]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

I'm not a creationist (that is, I don't believe creation occurred in six literal days just a little while ago), but I believe in original sin (our propensity for sin has been handed down to us through our parents all the way back to whatever it was -- an individual or community -- that started the human race off). Where's the logical problem?

There is no "individual or community" that started it off, evolution is continuous.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by Scott1

Just FYI: I don't know any group outside of Biblical fundamentalists who view the creation story as a literal event.

So if the story is not literal then what act of sin was committed?

In the bible, Adam (The Man - as he is called), is shown to be a physical person but if the story is just a story then what act of disobedience was committed.....and by who?

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

There you have it. Although my interpretation makes essential reference to all the relevant aspects of the story, it doesn't require a literal individual Adam or Eve.

So if no "Leteral Adam and Eve" then what sin was committed to begin with. Who committed the first (original) sin?

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by crystalonyx

There is no "individual or community" that started it off, evolution is continuous.

Yes, but there was a time when human creatures (creatures that have more or less the sort of DNA we have) emerged as a result of evolution. As far as I understand evolutionary theory, the first human would have appeared as part of a community (sort of a necessary element in heterosexual procreation).

[logician]

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin

So if the story is not literal then what act of sin was committed?

In the bible, Adam (The Man - as he is called), is shown to be a physical person but if the story is just a story then what act of disobedience was committed.....and by who?

Very good question, why the hangup upon this thing called "Sin", supposedly commited by some hominid tens of thousands of years ago.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by logician

Very good question, why the hangup upon this thing called "Sin", supposedly commited by some hominid tens of thousands of years ago.

No...No...!!!

Why the hangup upon this thing called "original sin" committed by some one who is regarded as not to have existed (not literal).....?

[sojourner]

What we call "original sin" is not a single event at a single point in time, committed by a single person. Rather, its the propensity for human beings to blur the distinction between humanity and Divinity. That's all it is. That theological stance is imparted to us through metaphor and narrative.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin

So if no "Leteral Adam and Eve" then what sin was committed to begin with. Who committed the first (original) sin?

"Original sin" does not mean "first sin." It's the idea that we inherit our sinful condition from our parents. The first sin, the one that got it all underway, seems to have been a desire to be like God, "knowing good and evil" (a Hebraic way of saying "knowing everything"). Not knowing everything requires a trusting relationship with God. If you know everything, you can live as a law unto yourself with no reference to God. But such a way of life flies in the face of the natural order in which God is over all. In short, the sinful condition we inherit is the desire to put ourselves above God.

The question how this whole thing got started is a bit of a mystery to me. The bible tells us that humanity rebelled in a way similar to what I've described. I don't pretend the biblical account is a journalistic, straightforward representation of the facts. Indeed, I believe the text is a piece of poetry, employing rhetorical devices and imagery designed to bring out the theological importance and meaning, not just the origin of, humankind's separation from God.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin

No...No...!!!

Why the hangup upon this thing called "original sin" committed by some one who is regarded as not to have existed (not literal).....?

Again, "original sin" does not denote the first sin. It denotes our current deplorable sinful condition, and implies that we've inherited it from our parents, on back to either the first human or the first community of humans.