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

[Soldano16]

Now that it's widely accepted that the story of Adam is not a literal representation of reality, the concept of original sin falls apart, it would seem.

[Dunemeister]

Not at all. The first chapter of Genesis is a theological interpretation of human origins. It's telling us that "Adam" (the word means "humanity") has a propensity to rebel against God, and this propensity leads to idolatry and immorality.

[GadFly]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

Not at all. The first chapter of Genesis is a theological interpretation of human origins. It's telling us that "Adam" (the word means "humanity") has a propensity to rebel against God, and this propensity leads to idolatry and immorality.

I have been taught that we are born with inbred sin. Most of my life I believed that to be true. For the last few years I have seriously questioned this belief based mainly on John 1, which seems to be a better description of Gen.1. Is Christ the light that lights everybody that comes into the world and how does that conflict with inbred sin? By inbred sin I mean original sin.

[Captain Civic]

Originally Posted by GadFly

I have been taught that we are born with inbred sin.

Only if your mother is your sister.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Soldano16

Adam = no Original Sin - right

Now that it's widely accepted that the story of Adam is not a literal representation of reality, the concept of original sin falls apart, it would seem.

Non-literally speaking, no Adam would mean no Original Sin, the way I understand both those symbols of reality.

Edit: Christ is the light that illuminates the symbols.

[Scuba Pete]

There is no Biblical support for the concept of "original sin". In fact, I defy you to find the term in scripture.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Soldano16

Now that it's widely accepted that the story of Adam is not a literal representation of reality, the concept of original sin falls apart, it would seem.

Unless "original sin" has a value that isn't literal as well.

[Willamena]

We should do a whole thread of "non-literally speaking"...

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by GadFly

I have been taught that we are born with inbred sin. Most of my life I believed that to be true. For the last few years I have seriously questioned this belief based mainly on John 1, which seems to be a better description of Gen.1. Is Christ the light that lights everybody that comes into the world and how does that conflict with inbred sin? By inbred sin I mean original sin.

The text at issue:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life,*5 and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.
John 1:1-5

I'm not so sure this contradicts the doctrine of original sin. Rather, this passage seems only to say that Jesus is the light, which in turn means that he is the truth. He enlightens. Besides, what about this?

And this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.'
John 3:19-21

People loved darkness rather than light. That seems to presume a propensity for evil. In any case, I'm not so sure that these passages in John speak directly to the issue.

[pray4me]

I don't believe people are born evil. I believe people are born as Adam was made good and that each of them eventually makes the choice to sin sometime during their lives. You truely see innocence when you look into a newborn baby's eyes. How can anyone think that we are born evil?