Original Sin

[BigJoeNobody]

I am sure we are all aware the Islam does not agree with the original sin theory. And I actually thought the idea was long past in most Christian scholarship. But recently when discussing with a friend of mine's mother some of the ideas of Islam I was confronted with the question of how do we atone for the sins of Adam and Eve without Jesus's (PBUTA) sacrifice. I was trying hard not to get into a deep philosophical debate as really a pool party IMO probably isn't the place for it, but under constant questioning I answered her from my belief of how the theory isn't sound in the Bible (and Quran). She of course was then completely confused as to why Jesus (PBUH) would need to be sacrificed if this was true, and I had to further explain that we do not believe he died nor was crucified (although I did give the few scholars opinion that he went through the crucifixion process as it stated but did not die).

My main question is this. Is there any scholarly opinions that the original sin theory is accurate? Or if anyone here believes that to be so? If so please explain, why? I'm not trying to demean anyone's beliefs but even when I was Christian I didn't know that many people who thought this way.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

But it's the foundation of many (most?) Christian denominations. Man was perfect but became flawed through some action. Everything in their theology is built in this premiss and if it is argued away than everything falls with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Hopefully we can get some Christians from both sides to chime in. I agree with you ACOT I find the Original Sin argument to be paramount in Christian Theology. But I know there are plenty of Denominations/ Churches that don't actively preach the "Original Sin" doctrine. I have followup questions for both, but I feel the need to allow people to state their opinion first

 

[wil]

I am from the camp that since the Jews that wrote the book don't believe it...why should I. When it comes to Jewish literalists v Chrisitian literalists (believing there was a garden of eden, man made out of mud, woman of his rib, snake, flood etc) we Christians win hands down.

Me..I believe that was metaphor them and metaphysics was metaphor me.

 

[Thomas]

Oh dear ...

The 'big problem/ with this questiuon is most people assume a definition of Original Sin without really understanding or wondering about the metaphysical principles involved.

I posted one of my long answers. I had somewhere in the region of 20 windows open, referencing Christian, Jewish and other materials. I write, correct, rewrite, reread, delve into books, check sources, check translations ... I enjoy it, often questions here get me looking into stuff I wouldn't otherwise look at, but it does take time, and then I get a 'database error: you do not have permission' pop-up screen, and it's all lost.

Not Steve's fault, but I'm not engaging in dialogue whilst this is the case.

 

[Thomas]

OK ... short answer.

The Judeo-Christian Tradition situates man in his primordial position in a direct relationship with the Divine.

In Christian terms I would say man was founded according to a created nature, and also accorded a state of grace, he walked and talked with God in Paradise, but fell prey to the all-too-human conceit of his own self-importance (pride), and consequently assumed that what he enjoyed by grace was his to possess by right.

In seeking to possess that which transcended his nature, he lost it. One could say that in seeking to know himself as 'I', he lost the sense of himself as 'we'. In putting himself at the centre of the universe, he found he had centred himself in himself, 'outside' or 'other-to' it. The one-ness was lost ... in trying to own it all, he lost the lot.

Whether the Jews believe in Original Sin or not seems to me a moot point. What the Bible suggests the Jews do believe is that:
a) Man was created good,
b) Man's state was paradisical,
c) Man lost that state,
d) Man has suffered ever since.

It's clear in Scripture that this loss was no-one's fault but his own. It was not 'a human accident' of ignorance nor was man tripped up 'by divine design', nor was the knowledge that God had warned man against somehow 'necessary' for his development ... in short, the excuses we make up to shift the blame or explain it away is just more of the 'not my fault' that both Eve and Adam offered to God.

Furthermore, the evidence of the Prophetic books of the Hebrew Scriptures, and Christ's fundamental message, is that this paradisical state is immanently close, is what God wants for His creature, and the only think standing in the way is human obdurance in putting self first.

 

[wil]

Whether the Jews believe in Original Sin or not seems to me a moot point. What the Bible suggests the Jews do believe is that:
a) Man was created good,
b) Man's state was paradisical,
c) Man lost that state,
d) Man has suffered ever since.

Jewish Mysticism again? Or how does this correlate with what we know about evolution...different types of man evolving in different areas and then mating and over thousands of years becoming the Homo Sapiens we are today? When was it man was good?

 

[StevePame]

I posted one of my long answers. I had somewhere in the region of 20 windows open, referencing Christian, Jewish and other materials. I write, correct, rewrite, reread, delve into books, check sources, check translations ... I enjoy it, often questions here get me looking into stuff I wouldn't otherwise look at, but it does take time, and then I get a 'database error: you do not have permission' pop-up screen, and it's all lost.

Not Steve's fault, but I'm not engaging in dialogue whilst this is the case.

I'm very sorry to hear this Thomas. After a few such occurrences myself, I've switched to writing my entries in notepad first. I know how frustrating that message is and my posts aren't nearly as detailed or researched as yours are. I'll get this fixed so that you and others can get back to focusing on dialogue and not being limited by the technology issues.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

OK ... short answer.

The Judeo-Christian Tradition situates man in his primordial position in a direct relationship with the Divine.

In Christian terms I would say man was founded according to a created nature, and also accorded a state of grace, he walked and talked with God in Paradise, but fell prey to the all-too-human conceit of his own self-importance (pride), and consequently assumed that what he enjoyed by grace was his to possess by right.

In seeking to possess that which transcended his nature, he lost it. One could say that in seeking to know himself as 'I', he lost the sense of himself as 'we'. In putting himself at the centre of the universe, he found he had centred himself in himself, 'outside' or 'other-to' it. The one-ness was lost ... in trying to own it all, he lost the lot.

Whether the Jews believe in Original Sin or not seems to me a moot point. What the Bible suggests the Jews do believe is that:
a) Man was created good,
b) Man's state was paradisical,
c) Man lost that state,
d) Man has suffered ever since.

It's clear in Scripture that this loss was no-one's fault but his own. It was not 'a human accident' of ignorance nor was man tripped up 'by divine design', nor was the knowledge that God had warned man against somehow 'necessary' for his development ... in short, the excuses we make up to shift the blame or explain it away is just more of the 'not my fault' that both Eve and Adam offered to God.

Furthermore, the evidence of the Prophetic books of the Hebrew Scriptures, and Christ's fundamental message, is that this paradisical state is immanently close, is what God wants for His creature, and the only think standing in the way is human obdurance in putting self first.

So that we are not discussing something outside of intended, the "original sin theory" I am discussing is the idea that when Adam and Eve (PBUT) ate the forbidden fruit the sin of disobeying the Creator's command was instilled in them. And that even with the punishments God placed on them the sins weren't forgiven. This sin also transfers down to next of kin, meaning the children are born with sin. And that without Jesus's (PBUH) sacrifice we cannot be rid of that sin. For it required a greater sacrifice than an animal or even human.

The problem I see with this is that the sins of the father are not the sins of the son, spoken in different ways throughout the OT and NT by various prophets. If one cannot inheret sin, nor be responsible for others' sins, why must we have a savior outside of God?

So on to your analysis. It seems you are saying the story of Adam and Eve (PBUT) is meant to describe our me-centricism. We are important, even more than the Creator himself. I find this incorrect, but of course you are welcome to believe otherwise as it is certainly a valid line of logic. I would say the failure of Adam and Eve (PBUT) is better described as it has been long considered, Satan's influence is capable against man.

On your other part, yeah it has happened to me a lot... remember to copy your text before submitting next time. or better yet write it in notepad and copy/paste. As always thanks for your detailed/descriptive post.

 

[Thomas]

Jewish Mysticism again? Or how does this correlate with what we know about evolution...different types of man evolving in different areas and then mating and over thousands of years becoming the Homo Sapiens we are today? When was it man was good?

Fish and bicycles ...

 

[Thomas]

So that we are not discussing something outside of intended, the "original sin theory" I am discussing is the idea that when Adam and Eve (PBUT) ate the forbidden fruit the sin of disobeying the Creator's command was instilled in them.

That's a strange and somewhat illogical way of looking at it to me ... I don't know where that comes from.

And that even with the punishments God placed on them the sins weren't forgiven.

It's not a case of 'punishments' – that's too literal a reading. It's more a case of 'consequence'.

The result of eating the forbidden fruit is a bit like letting the genie out of the bottle, once out, it can't be put back. Or opening Pandora's Box. Once something is seen, it can't be 'unseen'.

This sin also transfers down to next of kin, meaning the children are born with sin. And that without Jesus's (PBUH) sacrifice we cannot be rid of that sin. For it required a greater sacrifice than an animal or even human.

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that what we're talking about refers to human nature, so anyone born human is born with that nature. If you look at it that way, you overcome the tendency to see it as God putting a cross against an individual name.

The idea of 'self', once realised, cannot be 'un-realised' – that would seem to be the trace of human experience. If it could be we'd have done it, and everything in the garden, as they say, would be rosey. But it ain't.

The sacrifice of Christ realises an eschatalogical possibility that wasn't there before (given that the sacrifice in question is not bound to time and place, but now we're getting into deep metaphysical waters). The 'life in Christ', the one-ness that Paul speaks of (how many people fail to see Paul as one of the most mystical writers ever) is something beyond the one-ness that Adam and Eve enjoyed in Paradise.

The problem I see with this is that the sins of the father are not the sins of the son, spoken in different ways throughout the OT and NT by various prophets.

I'd say you're reading it too literally.

So on to your analysis. It seems you are saying the story of Adam and Eve (PBUT) is meant to describe our me-centricism. We are important, even more than the Creator himself.

No. that's not what Scripture says. Man considered himself as equal to, or rather the desires of his own will are as valid as God's will.

I would say the failure of Adam and Eve (PBUT) is better described as it has been long considered, Satan's influence is capable against man.

Are you saying Adam and Eve were incapable of resisting temptation?

I don't see how that can be so. If that was the case, then God would be wrong and His actions were born of ignorance and man has suffered an injustice. As God is neither ignorant nor unjust, I don't accept that argument.

 

[wil]

Fish and bicycles ...

a euphemism I don't know? Apples and oranges? If it does mean that...I don't understand. I am asking is your 'man was created good' and man fell and suffered... all mysticism? Where does it coincide with reality? Or are you saying it doesn't as fish don't ride bicycles?

 

[Thomas]

I don't understand

I think we have such different notions of what's 'real' that there is no immediate answer to the question you're asking.

 

[wil]

So are you saying you don't believe in evolution? If not..then I understand your reasoning... if you do, I am simply asking where in the progress of man developing into his/our current state were we 'created good/perfect' and where did we 'fall'.... or you are speaking purely metaphysical/mystical?

 

[Thomas]

So are you saying you don't believe in evolution?

No, of course not.

... or you are speaking purely metaphysical/mystical?

I don't but the 'purely' distinction you appear to be emphasising, that's why I'm not really engaging the question, I don't accept the premise on which the question's founded.

The metaphysical is a construct. The mystical is a construct. The material is a construct. They're all as real as each other. I think your assumption that 'mysticism' doesn't coincide with 'reality' is a false dichotomy.

As a general statement I would go further and say one doesn't see Christianity for what it is until one appreciates it's not 'either/or' but 'and/and' ... as above, so below, and all that ... it's an holistic revelation, not the revelation of another world, other than this one, but the realisation that it's all one ... grok that and then miracles, the natural, the supernatural, the material, the mystical, all stand in their proper relation one to the other ... then one begins to appreciate 'all in all'.

 

[wil]

The metaphysical is a construct. The mystical is a construct. The material is a construct. They're all as real as each other. I think your assumption that 'mysticism' doesn't coincide with 'reality' is a false dichotomy.

lol....Gad... I am trying to ask you how mysticism coincides with reality...

a euphemism I don't know? Apples and oranges? If it does mean that...I don't understand. I am asking is your 'man was created good' and man fell and suffered... all mysticism? Where does it coincide with reality? Or are you saying it doesn't as fish don't ride bicycles?

I am not making any assumption that any of it is one way or the other...sheesh.

 

[Thomas]

lol....Gad... I am trying to ask you how mysticism coincides with reality...

I know! And I'm at a loss to understand why you think it doesn't!

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Like an old married couple...
I love you, dads.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

That's a strange and somewhat illogical way of looking at it to me ... I don't know where that comes from.

That is the common answer I have received about the NEED for Jesus (PBUH) to be sacrificed. From people of all groups. It had largely been discounted by most people I have talked to over the last several years.

It's not a case of 'punishments' – that's too literal a reading. It's more a case of 'consequence'.

The result of eating the forbidden fruit is a bit like letting the genie out of the bottle, once out, it can't be put back. Or opening Pandora's Box. Once something is seen, it can't be 'unseen'.

when I look at a thesaurus Consequence and Punishments are synonyms. And I will admit, it might be too "literal" but seeing as how this is a book without continuity, and is the basis of the idea of creation, I don't see how a non-literal version would have been beneficial for back then, much less now.

But let's go with it.

In your opinion (or anyone else) did this action constitute the first sin, necessitating a separation from God for all mankind that comes afterward unless Jesus (PBUH) is sacrificed? And then ONLY those who accept him as God can be connected to God again.

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that what we're talking about refers to human nature, so anyone born human is born with that nature. If you look at it that way, you overcome the tendency to see it as God putting a cross against an individual name.

The idea of 'self', once realised, cannot be 'un-realised' – that would seem to be the trace of human experience. If it could be we'd have done it, and everything in the garden, as they say, would be rosey. But it ain't.

The sacrifice of Christ realises an eschatalogical possibility that wasn't there before (given that the sacrifice in question is not bound to time and place, but now we're getting into deep metaphysical waters). The 'life in Christ', the one-ness that Paul speaks of (how many people fail to see Paul as one of the most mystical writers ever) is something beyond the one-ness that Adam and Eve enjoyed in Paradise.

Shows human nature or beginning of such, ok I an buy that. I actually believe something similar about the story. But are you hinting at the fact that there is no list of good and bad? no good deed/bad deed record?

And are you claiming Jesus as separate of God in that last part?

Are you saying Adam and Eve were incapable of resisting temptation?

I don't see how that can be so. If that was the case, then God would be wrong and His actions were born of ignorance and man has suffered an injustice. As God is neither ignorant nor unjust, I don't accept that argument.

I believe the Bible says they were ignorant of right/wrong. A small influence could easily persuade someone who doesn't know what is wrong. They had no reference to what would happen, nor any known consequences. I believe it shows an integral part of human nature that was there before. We are all susceptible to sin. And we are all responsible for said sins that we do. I do not agree that God was wrong, nor ignorant that Eve would be influenced. It was something he had to allow to show them their feebleness.

No. that's not what Scripture says. Man considered himself as equal to, or rather the desires of his own will are as valid as God's will.

I would agree that a man who sees himself as an equal to God is much misled. I am glad that we agree that this is not how it is supposed to be.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

when I look at a thesaurus Consequence and Punishments are synonyms.

Well a punishment can be a consequences of ones actions, but not all consequences are punishment. Some lack the intent punishment requires (like trip in the forest because we aren't paying attention) or it could even be a positive.

I believe the Bible says they were ignorant of right/wrong. A small influence could easily persuade someone who doesn't know what is wrong. They had no reference to what would happen, nor any known consequences. I believe it shows an integral part of human nature that was there before. We are all susceptible to sin. And we are all responsible for said sins that we do. I do not agree that God was wrong, nor ignorant that Eve would be influenced. It was something he had to allow to show them their feebleness.

I'm not well read so I'll ask, is there a version where God isn't very clear that the Forbidden Fruit is very forbidden?