Original Sin

[Thomas]

That is the common answer I have received about the NEED for Jesus (PBUH) to be sacrificed.

OK. It's not the Catholic nor theology of the Orthodox Patriarchies. Let me clarify:

When you say 'when Adam and Eve (PBUT) ate the forbidden fruit the sin of disobeying the Creator's command was instilled in them' I disagree on the point that no-one 'instilled' in Adam and Eve the tendency to sin. The possibility of sin exists where there is free choice – man cannot sin without the freedom to choose, or rather for a sin to be a sin requires the free consent of the will. Man is not culpable of sin if he is freedom of choice is removed. That man has the freedom to sin does not mean he must sin.

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

No, that's not right. A consequence is the result of an action. Not all results are punishments.

In your opinion (or anyone else) did this action constitute the first sin...

According to Scripture, yes. The first occasion of any consequence when man offended against both his own and the Divine nature. Up until then, things seemed to have been going along quite smoothly.

... necessitating a separation from God for all mankind that comes afterward unless Jesus (PBUH) is sacrificed?

I don't see the sacrifice as a necessity. Or rather, it was necessary on our part, not on God's part. God does not suffer 'necessity'.

And then ONLY those who accept him as God can be connected to God again.

God does not force or coerce man into accepting God. If that was God's way, we wouldn't be having this debate.

That's not what God wants. If that was what God wanted, then it would be simple, He would make Himself known beyond doubt, and man would have no choice, but then man would not have the freedom to accept God. God allows man to accept Him, or deny Him, because He has endowed His creature with a certain nobility that He will not take away, even if man refuses to step up to the mark, as it were.

But are you hinting at the fact that there is no list of good and bad? no good deed/bad deed record?

Not sure what you mean.

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

Well Our Lord is one person, the union of a divine and human nature. His divinity is God's, His humanity is ours.

I believe the Bible says they were ignorant of right/wrong.

No it doesn't. When God says don't do it, don't do it. There's no claiming 'I didn't know' on that point. If man made a mistake, then God would see he made a mistake.

I can accept that if man makes a mistake, and refuses to accept he made a mistake even when it's made clear that he has made a mistake, then it's pride again ... but the Bible does not say they were ignorant, they were told not to eat the fruit, and warned of the dire consequence should they disobey. Eve knew that when she was tempted. Adam knew that when he was tempted.

They had no reference to what would happen, nor any known consequences.

You mean God could not make Himself understood? I doubt that. If it was as important as God seems to think it is, I am sure He could find some way to make Himself understood.

I believe it shows an integral part of human nature that was there before. We are all susceptible to sin.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we have to sin, or are obliged to sin, or created to sin. We choose to.

And we are all responsible for said sins that we do.

And we are not responsible for the things we have no control over. That's all part of the doctrine.

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.

Nope. Don't buy it. I agree that God might know man would fall ... but does that excuse man? Nope, because God did not ordain man to fall. The choice to obey or disobey was theirs, as it is ours ...

God created a Paradise in the middle, so there was outside of Paradise before Adam and Eve were even created. But God also saw that all His creation was good. Outside Paradise was not something God rustled up after they Fell, which is basically what the gnostics (and indeed Platonism) would suggest. But what made that creation outside Paradise not Paradise?

 

[wil]

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

How do I explain the question any clearer? I am not saying it doesn't...I am asking how? But I'll give up, as it appears you are pleased with berating me and ignoring the question.

 

[EdgyDolmen]

Over-Simplification? Possibly. Original Sin?

Everybody talks about it but nobody seems to be exactly sure what the actual sin was. Everybody has his or her own speculation. I keep hearing this thing about an apple. Understand of course I’m working with the generally accepted English interpretation and on the premise that the Bible is something other than simply a man made compilation of ancient fantasy. Maybe the truth is shrouded in simile, allegory and metaphor!

Some with juvenile notions regard the original sin as having something to do with nakedness or fornication. Nothing really supports that idea. Adam and Eve only recognized their nakedness “after” they had sinned therefore the original sin couldn’t be nakedness or fornication.

Well how about the speculation that they were trying to be “godlike”? This has to be incorrect too because Adam was created by God in God’s (or Gods) own image. Of course Eve was created next in Adam’s either from rib or clay. Wasn’t she? Let’s see. Since they were already God-like that speculation is surely incorrect.

Maybe it was the knowledge of good and evil or the recognition of right and wrong that was the original sin. If we accept the Bible’s explanation this can’t be the case either. Why? The fact that God expected obedience indicates that God had already set a premise of right and wrong prior to that moment. To say that the knowledge of right and wrong was the original sin ignores that reality.

Now to confuse matters even more God tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree or he will kill them. (It seems He was in no hurry to kill them. They lived for several hundred years afterwards.) Now remember at this point they supposedly have no concept of right or wrong. If as the Bible states, they were made in God’s own image, they were perfect Beings. (How does perfection create imperfection?) We are not even sure they understood death. It seems evident that without knowing right from wrong they could not grasp that consequence? Without knowing these parameters they would be destined to fail.

And finally it seems evident that in order to be disobedient Adam and Eve had to already possess free will so it seems reasonable to suppose that possibly the mere possession of free will itself was the original sin. And that was a “gift” from God?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

And finally it seems evident that in order to be disobedient Adam and Eve had to already possess free will so it seems reasonable to suppose that possibly the mere possession of free will itself was the original sin. And that was a “gift” from God?

This strikes me as a profound statement. In order to choose wrongly, Adam and Eve had to have the ability to make a choice; therefor had to have free will. If they were created with the ability to make a choice, why punish them for exercising their ability to do so? Because God didn't like the choice they made? That doesn't seem very sporting.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

When you say 'when Adam and Eve (PBUT) ate the forbidden fruit the sin of disobeying the Creator's command was instilled in them' I disagree on the point that no-one 'instilled' in Adam and Eve the tendency to sin. The possibility of sin exists where there is free choice – man cannot sin without the freedom to choose, or rather for a sin to be a sin requires the free consent of the will. Man is not culpable of sin if he is freedom of choice is removed. That man has the freedom to sin does not mean he must sin.

maybe instilled was the wrong word. That they took on sin, and that sin passed on. On the rest I agree, from any Abrahamic POV.

No it doesn't. When God says don't do it, don't do it. There's no claiming 'I didn't know' on that point. If man made a mistake, then God would see he made a mistake.

I can accept that if man makes a mistake, and refuses to accept he made a mistake even when it's made clear that he has made a mistake, then it's pride again ... but the Bible does not say they were ignorant, they were told not to eat the fruit, and warned of the dire consequence should they disobey. Eve knew that when she was tempted. Adam knew that when he was tempted.

Other than being told not to, I don't remember any consequences/punishments being told to them. They knew they weren't supposed to, but unless I missed something, their naivity to the seriousness was a contributing factor to their listening to Satan.

You mean God could not make Himself understood? I doubt that. If it was as important as God seems to think it is, I am sure He could find some way to make Himself understood.

I think God knew what was going to happen. The whole basis for a test rides on the idea that one has the option/possibility of failing. (ok this is obviously Islamic POV on the test). The whole ordeal taught them that they were not able to live a life without desire for the forbidden. It also taught them (and further us all) that there are dire consequences/punishments for breaking God's laws. It also introduced them to their bad influencer, Satan.

And we are not responsible for the things we have no control over. That's all part of the doctrine.

same here. But correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Christianity (in general) preach that if you believe in Jesus (PBUH) as God that you are no longer responsible for those sins?

God created a Paradise in the middle, so there was outside of Paradise before Adam and Eve were even created. But God also saw that all His creation was good. Outside Paradise was not something God rustled up after they Fell, which is basically what the gnostics (and indeed Platonism) would suggest. But what made that creation outside Paradise not Paradise?

We call what you call heaven Paradise, so We would say Paradise is above, not in the middle. (obviously not in physical means like clouds). I agree that they were created in Paradise of things found here in our reality, as those things are there as well.

All in all I think I get that you don't believe the sin Adam and Eve (PBUT) committed was the reason Jesus had to be sacrificed (in Christian traditional teachings)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Everybody talks about it but nobody seems to be exactly sure what the actual sin was. Everybody has his or her own speculation. I keep hearing this thing about an apple. Understand of course I’m working with the generally accepted English interpretation and on the premise that the Bible is something other than simply a man made compilation of ancient fantasy. Maybe the truth is shrouded in simile, allegory and metaphor!

I'm pretty sure all scholars and most followers agree that the sin was not eating the fruit, but disobeying God's command. Not a big mystery.

Well how about the speculation that they were trying to be “godlike”? This has to be incorrect too because Adam was created by God in God’s (or Gods) own image. Of course Eve was created next in Adam’s either from rib or clay. Wasn’t she? Let’s see. Since they were already God-like that speculation is surely incorrect.

Guessing this is a jab at Christian Doctrine? Although being in one's image isn't necessarily making something Like it in all or even most senses. I personally dislike the "in his image" part as it seems to have put a look to something above corporeal. I've felt nearly certain for a long time that this is a misunderstanding that was recorded incorrectly.

Because God didn't like the choice they made?

It's not that they had a choice. God commanded them NOT TO. Their sin wasn't eating the fruit, that part is evident even without edgy's elaborate manifesto. The sin is disobeying. This was taught to Jews, then to Christians, then Muslims. I'm not sure anyone really looks at them like the fruit is the sin, or free will. Free will was granted on creation. (In Islam Humans and Djinn are given this same gift, and for choosing correctly, we are rewarded better than the angels who have no free will)

 

[EdgyDolmen]

Re #25

This is IO! I presented a differing opinion. Jab? Really?

Yes I removed what I consider fodder from the original sin story but the participants in this group know the story well. Many will think I am nuts while most will just think I am ignorant and wrong but those who read the words without preconception will understand why I presented such an unpopular notion. I have no malice.

P.S. - I believe you will find that the church only came up with the free will notion after the Epicurean paradox in or around +/-300 BC:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

 

[Thomas]

How do I explain the question any clearer? I am not saying it doesn't...I am asking how? But I'll give up, as it appears you are pleased with berating me and ignoring the question.

No. It's just that we do this time and again.

It's not the question, it's the premise on which the question is based, that's what I'm pointing out. The premise is flawed.

That's why you ask the question, you want an answer on your terms, and I'm saying there isn't one because your terms a priori rule an answer out.

You pose the question above in terms of the 'coincidence' of the mystical and the real. To coincide means two things occupying one space – my point is the mystical is real, the real is mystical. Your question assumes there is the real, and there is the not-real ...

I think you want me to say 'it was homo erectus' or 'it was Tuesday June 23' or something like that. I have no idea. It's immaterial. I would suppose around the time that man evolved reflective consciousness? That makes sense, but really, to me fixing on questions like that misses the point ...

 

[wil]

So we can't discuss the material/physical in mystical terms nor the mystical in physical/material terms? I realize our language is lacking, but is that not what the bible and prophets attempted to do?

 

[Namaste Jesus]

The idea of original sin is really not all that complicated. It has much to do with the concept of free will. Simply put, we are free to follow God or to follow Satan and this is how it has been since the time of Adam.

Original sin is nothing more than the first time man went against the teachings of God and so it is. Everyone born since that time is vulnerable to sin. Why? Because we learn from those who came before us. If our teachers are sinners, we too learn to sin. As the scripture warns; the sins of the father shall be past unto the sons.

Strictly speaking, we are not born sinners, but will surely learn the behavior. We have little opportunity to do otherwise, but by the grace of God we can surely overcome. For God has provided for our salvation when we fall.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

So we can't discuss the material/physical in mystical terms nor the mystical in physical/material terms? I realize our language is lacking, but is that not what the bible and prophets attempted to do?

I'm completely confused by your questioning. Partly because I try to read things from the perspective of the person in question. As I've said before your position is baffling to me. Why follow a book's teachings if you don't believe it's source? You've stated many times you don't believe in A God, but rather that God is a conjecture of idea/thought/decisions made by the individual. Now you are asking Thomas how Evolution, as you describe it, fits into the First people story of the Bible. The equation isn't equal. YOUR theory of evolution doesn't coincide with the development Thomas describes, therefore his answer would not come close to satisfying what you want to hear. What you want to hear (and I'm assuming this ) is that it is impossible that they were concious and had complex thought because the Old World Hominids did not have the capacity of understanding the basic parts of nature, much less a complex supernatural being. With that knowledge you are hoping he comes to your understanding that the Bible is a good morality book, but nothing more.

If I am mistaken, so be it. If so please answer the question as you see it, then maybe we can gauge your actual question in terms that make sense.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

The idea of original sin is really not all that complicated. It has much to do with the concept of free will. Simply put, we are free to follow God or to follow Satan and this is how it has been since the time of Adam.
Original sin is nothing more than the first time man went against the teachings of God and so it is. Everyone born since that time is vulnerable to sin. Why? Because we learn from those who came before us. If our teachers are sinners, we too learn to sin. As the scripture warns; the sins of the father shall be past unto the sons.

It says the sins of the Father are not the sins of the son. Not sure where you get the opposite. I agree from an Islamic perspective that we are born pure and without sin, but are taught to sin.

Strictly speaking, we are not born sinners, but will surely learn the behavior. We have little opportunity to do otherwise, but by the grace of God we can surely overcome.

Thoroughly agree.

For God has provided for our salvation when we fall.

We are probably not speaking of the same method of salvation. In Islam it is preached that the only method of salvation is by the forgiveness by mercy of Allah. His grace is immeasurable and does not need another to fill this need.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

No wil just wants to understand, and Thomas don't know how to answer the question because it's the wrong one from his position. This misunderstanding isn't all that strange, we all understand the world so fundamentally different from each other.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

No wil just wants to understand, and Thomas don't know how to answer the question because it's the wrong one from his position. This misunderstanding isn't all that strange, we all understand the world so fundamentally different from each other.

maybe so... as I said I can only work off of assumption as to what he means. To me it's like asking me why the egyptians were praising the Sun God.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

It says the sins of the Father are not the sins of the son. Not sure where you get the opposite.

You are correct, ultimately each individual is responsible for their own actions. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was referring to passages like Deuteronomy 5:9 and Exodus 20:5 that warn of the iniquities of the father.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

I understand. To me those mean that here on earth when you do something to anger God, his punishment here will trickle down. For instance maybe he takes someone's wealth, then his child does not start with that wealth he might have had if he hadn't angered God. Just my view though. but this brings us back to the question, Is the sin of Adam and Eve (PBUT) given throughout all their successors (all mankind) until Jesus (PBUH) was sacrificed to atone for those sins? There seems to be a lot of holes in this theory that don't make sense. But it looks like noone here is saying that it is the case that we inherited that sin.

 

[Thomas]

Everybody talks about it but nobody seems to be exactly sure what the actual sin was.

I know. OS is one of those things everyone's a critic of, without actually knowing what the doctrine says!

I keep hearing this thing about an apple.

Yep. There is no apple. The word is fruit.

Some with juvenile notions regard the original sin as having something to do with nakedness or fornication. Nothing really supports that idea. Adam and Eve only recognized their nakedness “after” they had sinned therefore the original sin couldn’t be nakedness or fornication.

Quite.

Well how about the speculation that they were trying to be “godlike”? This has to be incorrect too because Adam was created by God in God’s (or Gods) own image.

'Image' and 'likeness' is not sameness, so I'm not sure your conclusion is the necessary one. Tradition interprets the text otherwise.

Maybe it was the knowledge of good and evil or the recognition of right and wrong that was the original sin. If we accept the Bible’s explanation this can’t be the case either. Why? The fact that God expected obedience indicates that God had already set a premise of right and wrong prior to that moment. To say that the knowledge of right and wrong was the original sin ignores that reality.

Yep.

Now to confuse matters even more God tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree or he will kill them.

Er, not quite. 2:17 is not a threat, it's a warning. The implication is it's the fruit that is dangerous.

If as the Bible states, they were made in God’s own image, they were perfect Beings. (How does perfection create imperfection?)

Again, doesn't logically follow. Image could mean the capacity for self-reflection, likeness could mean free will. It does not necessarily infer perfection.

And finally it seems evident that in order to be disobedient Adam and Eve had to already possess free will so it seems reasonable to suppose that possibly the mere possession of free will itself was the original sin. And that was a “gift” from God?

No, it's not the will as such, it's what is willed.

 

[Thomas]

This strikes me as a profound statement. In order to choose wrongly, Adam and Eve had to have the ability to make a choice;

Yes.

therefor had to have free will. If they were created with the ability to make a choice, why punish them for exercising their ability to do so?

Because of what they will, when they will contrary to the Divine instruction.

Society grants rights and freedoms, but punishes transgressions of those rights and freedoms.

Because God didn't like the choice they made? That doesn't seem very sporting.

It's far more serious than that!

 

[Namaste Jesus]

But it looks like noone here is saying that it is the case that we inherited that sin.

From my side, it's not so much inherited as it is perpetuated because of. If that makes any sense.

 

[Thomas]

Other than being told not to, I don't remember any consequences/punishments being told to them.

Genesis 2:17.

I think God knew what was going to happen.

Yes.

The whole basis for a test rides on the idea that one has the option/possibility of failing. (ok this is obviously Islamic POV on the test). The whole ordeal taught them that they were not able to live a life without desire for the forbidden. It also taught them (and further us all) that there are dire consequences/punishments for breaking God's laws. It also introduced them to their bad influencer, Satan.

Nope. That's very much Satan's argument, that they had to disobey God to learn something necessary to their existence.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Christianity (in general) preach that if you believe in Jesus (PBUH) as God that you are no longer responsible for those sins?

Nope.

All in all I think I get that you don't believe the sin Adam and Eve (PBUT) committed was the reason Jesus had to be sacrificed (in Christian traditional teachings)

Not at all. Just that what Christ won for us by His sacrifice went way beyond 'balancing the books'.

 

[Thomas]

There seems to be a lot of holes in this theory that don't make sense.

I rather think the holes are in not understanding the doctrine.