Original Sin

It Aint Necessarily So said:

If sin doesn't mean the state of being spiritually sick due to the disobedience of the first two human beings requiring salvation through the blood of Christ to avoid perdition and destruction, and instead earn eternal heaven, then Christianity's central tenets fall away, and there is no reason to be a Christian or to petition the Christian god.

I think the point of the OP is that if the Genesis account isn't taken literally as just described, none of the rest of the religion has any meaning. The OP asks Christians who don't take the scriptures literally why the concept of original sin should be believed literally if the idea of two original human beings literally defying a specific god didn't create a condition requiring literal intervention of a specific nature - belief in and obedience to a specific god.

It's not mentioned in the OP, but if one accepts the scientific theory of evolution over literal creation of the kinds including man as described in Genesis, then man was not created in any image, and there is no reason to think that any organisms have souls.

Click to expand...

A person who sins, and every person sins, can only find salvation through Christ, period. We sin because we are born with the propensity to sin, it is our nature and none can avoid it.

The Genesis account of the fall may be literal, or symbolic, I don´t think it makes much difference.

The point is clear, humanity was created with a sinless nature, therefore to sin was a cold hard intellectual choice. At some point humanity became depraved through the the wrong use of free will, exercising those cold hard choices.

Children were born into this depraved situation, surrounded by sin at their birth. Generation after generation lived in a society where sin was embraced , and it was the norm. It could not be avoided.

In the Genesis story, in the beginning humanity had no knowledge of evil, thus no desire to do it.

Once that knowledge was obtained, there was no going back.

I believe in evolution, that is I believe that organisms have great ability to adapt to different environments over time. Micro evolution. I do not believe that types of animals become another type, i.e. dinosaurs becoming chickens, or a four legged relatively small land land mammals crawled into the ocean and became the largest animals on earth.

It is what I believe, and without more evidence, I will continue to believe it.

shmogie said:

A person who sins, and every person sins, can only find salvation through Christ, period. We sin because we are born with the propensity to sin, it is our nature and none can avoid it.

The Genesis account of the fall may be literal, or symbolic, I don´t think it makes much difference.

The point is clear, humanity was created with a sinless nature, therefore to sin was a cold hard intellectual choice. At some point humanity became depraved through the the wrong use of free will, exercising those cold hard choices.

Children were born into this depraved situation, surrounded by sin at their birth. Generation after generation lived in a society where sin was embraced , and it was the norm. It could not be avoided.

In the Genesis story, in the beginning humanity had no knowledge of evil, thus no desire to do it.

Once that knowledge was obtained, there was no going back.

I believe in evolution, that is I believe that organisms have great ability to adapt to different environments over time. Micro evolution. I do not believe that types of animals become another type, i.e. dinosaurs becoming chickens, or a four legged relatively small land land mammals crawled into the ocean and became the largest animals on earth.

It is what I believe, and without more evidence, I will continue to believe it.

Click to expand...

Its an allegory about the change from a hunter-gatherer life to a life as an agriculturist. Its a tricky conundrum.. Adam and Eve seek knowledge rather than trusting exclusively in God's providence and are punished for doing so. Remember that God rejected Cain's vegetables in favor of Abel's animal (blood sacrifice)

KenS said:

You can believe in evolution as a whole and still believe Adam and Eve were created.

Click to expand...

I am afraid you cannot.

Ciao

- viole

sooda said:

Remember that God rejected Cain's vegetables in favor of Abel's animal (blood sacrifice)

Click to expand...

"Medium Rare" indeed!

shmogie said:

A person who sins, and every person sins, can only find salvation through Christ, period. We sin because we are born with the propensity to sin, it is our nature and none can avoid it.

The Genesis account of the fall may be literal, or symbolic, I don´t think it makes much difference.

The point is clear, humanity was created with a sinless nature, therefore to sin was a cold hard intellectual choice. At some point humanity became depraved through the the wrong use of free will, exercising those cold hard choices.

Children were born into this depraved situation, surrounded by sin at their birth. Generation after generation lived in a society where sin was embraced , and it was the norm. It could not be avoided.

In the Genesis story, in the beginning humanity had no knowledge of evil, thus no desire to do it.

Once that knowledge was obtained, there was no going back.

I believe in evolution, that is I believe that organisms have great ability to adapt to different environments over time. Micro evolution. I do not believe that types of animals become another type, i.e. dinosaurs becoming chickens, or a four legged relatively small land land mammals crawled into the ocean and became the largest animals on earth.

It is what I believe, and without more evidence, I will continue to believe it.

Click to expand...

Uhm, that knowledge was acquired during the time when they did not know what evil was, and had therefore no desire to do it.

Ergo, what you call original sin was done during the time when those two did not even know what sin was.

It is obvious. If the first thing was to to acquire knowledge of what is evil or not, then the perp cannot be accused of malicious intent. By definition. They were simply morally incompetent.

And God got mad. Gosh, you really do not want be around Him when He gets that temper. Not even His meek one third could calm Him down. A true hissy fit of cosmic proportions. For reasons, whose irrationality could be understood even by a child.

Which raises serious questions about us being in His image. We know it is not meant that He is an ape too and so. But I also hope it is not meant that we have His intelligence and rationality.

Ciao

- viole

viole said:

Uhm, that knowledge was acquired during the time when they did not know what evil was, and had therefore no desire to do it.

Ergo, what you call original sin was done during the time when those two did not even know what sin was.

It is obvious. If the first thing was to to acquire knowledge of what is evil or not, then the perp cannot be accused of malicious intent. By definition.

And God got mad. For reasons, whose irrationality could be even understood by a child.

Which raises serious questions about us being in His image. We know it is not meant that He is an ape and so. But I also hope it is not meant that we have His intelligence.

Ciao

- viole

Click to expand...

I think concept of God evolved from the Canaanite pantheon to Yahweh.

sooda said:

In Christianity Adam and Eve sinned because they were beguiled by the snake and disobeyed God. Therefore all human children forever are born with that inherited sin.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that the sins of the parents are passed to the children.

viole said:

I am afraid you cannot.

Ciao

- viole

Click to expand...

I disagree.

Adios

KenS said:

I disagree.

Adios

Click to expand...

Well, how do you disagree? Are you telling me that you want your cake and eat it too, like all evolutionary theists (a creationists variant) do?

If not, then be more specific. Please.

Ciao

- viole

sun rise said:

I don't believe that the sins of the parents are passed to the children.

Click to expand...

Me either.

viole said:

Well, how do you disagree? Are you telling me that you want your cake and eat it too, like all evolutionary theists (a creationists variant) do?

If not, then be more specific. Please.

Ciao

- viole

Click to expand...

the Bible does not say how God created all the animals and birds and living creatures and plant life, thus the aperture of evolution. All it says is that He literally created Adam and Eve.

sooda said:

In Christianity Adam and Eve sinned because they were beguiled by the snake and disobeyed God. Therefore all human children forever are born with that inherited sin.

Click to expand...

In modern Christian preaching that is the narrow idea of original sin that is put forward, but I think the doctrine is not stuck there. We aren't stuck with whatever the partially trained monkeys say. Their parroted words about original sin could use some better grounding, some polish and doesn't mesh well with Pauline texts. We are stuck with Paul and have to make sense of what he says.

Paul is much more practical and talks about how gentiles were once aliens from the covenants of promise but have been brought near. The original sin is kiboshed -- filtered out, not counted against humans anymore, and you have instead lawlessness and law fighting within the same person. You have the judged part of the person which is destroyed and the exonerated part which is not, each corresponding to the law sin and the law of the spirit within each.

ref: Romans 7:23 Romans 8:3 Proverbs 20:27

KenS said:

Thank you for asking

It really depends on how you define it since different people will have different perspectives.

You can believe in evolution as a whole and still believe Adam and Eve were created. It doesn't say how animals were created. There are many theories as the Bible isn't specific on that issue such as a pre-Adamic world which would account for "other beings".

Do we believe that Adam and Eve were the "original sinners"? Yes. And certainly we never have to teach our children to do wrong, they learn all by themselves.

So what exactly is your question on original sin?

Click to expand...

I hadn't considered that some might believe that only Adam and eve were created. Is the bible not quite specific though? As in, god created light and then the seas and land etc etc before he created animals and humans etc. If you believe animals evolved but not humans, why not? I mean, there is plenty of evidence that humans evolved from a type of ape.

I'm not sure that children knowing right from wrong is necessarily evidence that God gave us a sense of right and wrong (I think that's what you meant, apologies if not). We're a social species and as such, we behave in a way which by and large is good for others of our species. Obviously there are exceptions, but as a general rule we follow that trend. This is also common in other great apes.

Similar studies have been done on rats -

Empathetic Rats Help Each Other Out

If you can't be bothered with the link (I rarely can, but I thought I'd provide a source) which show that rats also show these social behaviours without the need of a reward.

You kind of answered my question though, so thank you. The rest was just follow up.

Stevicus said:

I always took it as another way of saying that "the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree." It's relatively common for children to walk in the footsteps of their parents, even in sin. But I don't believe it's something they're born with (unless they were born with some kind of brain damage or other anomalies).

Click to expand...

But surely sin is an act - so even if the worst psychopath in the world is born and all they want to do is skin babies - if they restrain themselves then nothing has been done wrong.

Even if you count thoughts as a sin (I don't see why you would) then there's no reason to think that newborns are capable of conceptual thought like that. So they probably can't even be guilty of thought crime.

Brickjectivity said:

Rough explanation of what original sin is supposed to mean:
Israel is formed, and this divides the world into that which is formed (Israel) and that which previously exists (the nations). Those who follow the Torah are in the new creation, while those who do not are part of the old pre-existing world. Those who follow Torah are like the kosher creatures which prefer the day to the night. They prefer flowing water and heights to mud and still water. These are symbols found in Torah and Genesis. Those in the new creation aren't war loving savages but shepherds, singers and lovers. Thus the original sin is to be a part of the previous creation, to love war, to oppress, to be without law. Fast forward to Jesus and then to Paul, and original sin is gone, since Jesus death atones for all the world. The entire world is atoned for as there is a new creation. At least to those in Christ that is the true world but to those who are not in Christ the world continues to seem fallen and of the old creation.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure by what you mean by your last sentence, could you expand?

Earthtank said:

The concept of the original sin directly contradicts the god of the bible, which is 1 of the main reasons i reject Christianity

Click to expand...

To me, original sin can be dismissed if you don't believe genesis literally. If you dismiss literal sin, jesus died for nothing. If that's the case, Christianity is built on a falsehood.

If you believe genesis literally, that's a whole other discussion but one that I usually don't have the strength for...

Thief said:

I note the Spanish application.....sin
to mean
without

and someone had to be first to live without God
in sin

prior to the garden event Man lived without God
but a s a species
and in ignorance of spirit

primates do that snatch and grab.....runaway
primates do that harm unto others.....the self as primary

Adam and Eve for cause of the garden event
were the first to be aware
sin

living without God

Click to expand...

Except that primates don't behave like that. Self is very much secondary in our, and in other great ape societies.

Most of the world lives without the Christian God, and the vast majority of humans behave in pretty much exactly the same way as other great apes from a macro point of view.

Try watching comparison videos of chimps and human behaviour. It's creepy.

Their

viole said:

Uhm, that knowledge was acquired during the time when they did not know what evil was, and had therefore no desire to do it.

Ergo, what you call original sin was done during the time when those two did not even know what sin was.

It is obvious. If the first thing was to to acquire knowledge of what is evil or not, then the perp cannot be accused of malicious intent. By definition. They were simply morally incompetent.

And God got mad. Gosh, you really do not want be around Him when He gets that temper. Not even His meek one third could calm Him down. A true hissy fit of cosmic proportions. For reasons, whose irrationality could be understood even by a child.

Which raises serious questions about us being in His image. We know it is not meant that He is an ape too and so. But I also hope it is not meant that we have His intelligence and rationality.

Ciao

- viole

Click to expand...

Their rebellion was not about good and evil. You are correct, they had no knowledge of evil.

The issue was obedience and free will. They were told not to do one thing, but they were free to do it if they chose.

The poor exercise of free will led to disobedience which led to evil.

Dan Mellis said:

I'm not sure by what you mean by your last sentence, could you expand?

Click to expand...

I apologize for this length and hope it clarifies:

The NT authors adopt a semantic practice, speaking of the ministry of Jesus as a new creation. What we call today a 'Ministry' is treated as a world in two places in the biblical canon. You see it very clearly in the gospel of John which describes the ministry of Jesus, plainly talking about the light of the new creation dividing light from darkness. Its a little harder to see in Genesis, but Abraham's ministry is described there, too, as the creation of a world. Those who are in Abraham are part of a creation. Those who are in Christ are in a new creation, too. The NT authors use this terminology 'New creation'.

Members of Christ die to this world, deny themselves losing their individuality to be subsumed in Christ and are part of new creation. This is called taking the name of Christ, living in Christ and various other things. After this they see things differently, through eyes of faith. In other words they accept that other people may not see things as they do, because other people are not regenerated, not part of the new creation. The phrase I like to use is 'Bubble universe'. They live in a universe of faith. In the new creation Jesus is the messiah and has saved the world, but this is seen only through faith; as in it he has accomplished in their world what others not of that new creation will only see in the future. In other words the end is declared before it is accomplished. This has precedence, as the creation in Genesis is similarly established by words only until one day a perfect Sabbath comes. The LORD speaks, but Genesis and John both concern an ongoing process. To the believers and doers, this world that we see today is fallen and unregenerate (uncreated) but in their world everything is renewed. They work until that which is true in heaven becomes true on earth. The term for this is 'Glorification'. Their world will become the real world, the truth. Think of it as two universes merging into one or as one solidifying while the older universe fades to nothing.

That is what I mean.

KenS said:

the Bible does not say how God created all the animals and birds and living creatures and plant life, thus the aperture of evolution. All it says is that He literally created Adam and Eve.

Click to expand...

Well, that makes no sense. Evolution entails that any Adam and Eve shared a common ancestor with chimps. And pigs. And trees. And everything else with a DNA. And that we are animals. Vertebrates, mammals and primates, to be precise.

My personal suggestion to Christian theists, in order to not ruin both science and the Bible, is to save the Bible at least, if it is really so important to them, and strictly believe in the literal account. Like Ken Ham and such.

Your best bet in the interest of intellectual coherence, really.

Ciao

- viole