Original Sin

No devil critter sitting on my shoulder...just that internal free will making the wrong choice... Or taking a side path for extra credit...
 
BigJoeNobody said:
We believe Satan is the influencer of evil, yet still bends to the will of Allah when commanded.
Click to expand...
I see. That's not too far off the Christian idea that God gives us power over Satan in Christ's name.
BigJoeNobody said:
The "war" isn't as much of a Good vs Evil or God vs Satan, but rather a battle of choices and actions in oneself.
Click to expand...
I kind of see it that way too.
 
Have any of you ever read "The Wizard of Oz"? I have a leather bound copy. Quiet enlightening. The story begins with Dorothy...
 
Aussie Thoughts said:
No Satan in Baha'i or Satan is not evil?
Click to expand...
Thanks for your question Aussie...! Yes there's no "Satan" for Baha'is as a being that is at war with God...

Here are some excerpts from Baha'i sources:

The reality underlying this question is that the evil spirit, Satan or whatever is interpreted as evil, refers to the lower nature in man. This baser nature is symbolized in various ways. In man there are two expressions, one is the expression of nature, the other the expression of the spiritual realm.

God has never created an evil spirit; all such ideas and nomenclature are symbols expressing the mere human or earthly nature of man.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, p. 77)
 
The idea of "original sin" was shoe horned in later.
The Genesis store was a Hebrew story before it was Christian, and they have no concept of the "Devil", Hell, or Sin as Christians do. For them Satan was one of god's trust angles whose job it was to test the faith of humans. The OT never links Satan to the serpent in the garden.
The NT doesn't really either and wasn't introduced until about the 2nd century.
What's more everything about the "Devil" is very confused and largely the work of Dante and Milton. The Devil is only mentioned in passing as a keeper of the underworld, Satan is never directly associated with that, neither is Lucifer (which is shown a separate wood cuts as a different individual), and that figure is never shown as being equal to or opposed to god. Satan tempted humans, but only at god's instruction.
So why have it? As an answer to the smart mouths that say "I'm a just man that has never sinned, I don't need saving." The manufactured response is "Oh no, we are ALL sinful because....because....because of Adam and Eve." Very convenient.
To make this argument even less valid, there is the fact (barring, of course that Creationism through Genesis is proven wrong) that based on the scripture Adam and Eve weren't the progenitors of all human kind. Hebrew scripture wasn't intended to be universal, it was intended to be for the Hebrews. Adam and Eve may have been the first Hebrews, but they weren't the first and only humans. If they were, where did their children's spouses come from? When Cain is cast out, God marks him so he would be killed by anyone else. Who is this anyone else?
So as far as I can tell Original Sin is merely a convenient control mechanism.
 
Thomas said:
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.
Click to expand...

I seriously question the highlighted in terms of Jewish belief systems. It resembles a warmed over rewording of Original Sin.
 
Last edited:
socialleper said:
For them Satan was one of god's trust angles whose job it was to test the faith of humans.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is an ancient view of God as suffering uncertainty and unknowing ... later developments saw God as without flaw and thus the idea of needing or indulging one of His angels was deemed unworthy of God, it's the kind of stunt man plays, not God.

socialleper said:
The NT doesn't really either and wasn't introduced until about the 2nd century.
Click to expand...
Check John 8:44.

socialleper said:
What's more everything about the "Devil" is very confused and largely the work of Dante and Milton.
Click to expand...
O agree with this. Once the medieval mind got going, sheesh, the things it came up with!

socialleper said:
The Devil is only mentioned in passing as a keeper of the underworld,
Click to expand...
Not in Hebrew and Christian Scriptures.

socialleper said:
Satan is never directly associated with that, neither is Lucifer (which is shown a separate wood cuts as a different individual), and that figure is never shown as being equal to or opposed to god. Satan tempted humans, but only at god's instruction.
Click to expand...
Again, not in Christ's view. God does not inflict suffering on man to test his faith, this was, and continues to be, a sentimental notion.

socialleper said:
So why have it? ... Very convenient.
Click to expand...
You're obviously unaware of the theological discussions on the nature of man and the nature of sin.

socialleper said:
So as far as I can tell Original Sin is merely a convenient control mechanism.
Click to expand...
Yes, that appears to be the standard meme.
 
Thomas said:
Well it's there plain as day in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Click to expand...

No it is not!!!! Please cite in detail.

You cited it was the Jewish view, and that is false! Please cite references to this claim.

http://outreachjudaism.org/original-sin/ said:
The term “original sin” is unknown to the Jewish Scriptures, and the Church’s teachings on this doctrine are antithetical to the core principles of the Torah and its prophets. Moreover, your comment that your Christian denomination teaches that water baptism is essential for the removal of sin may rattle the sensitivities of more Christians than anything I am going to say. Nevertheless, you have raised a number of important issues that must be addressed.

Before answering your question, however, I will explain the Christian doctrine on original sin for those unfamiliar with this creed of the Church. According to Church teachings, as a result of the first sin committed by our first parents in the Garden of Eden, there were catastrophic spiritual consequences for the human race. Most importantly, Christendom holds that these devastating effects extend far beyond the curses of painful childbirth and laborious farming conditions outlined in the third chapter of Genesis.

This well-known Church doctrine posits that when Adam and Eve rebelled against God and ate from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge, all of their descendants became infected with the stain of their transgression.

Moreover, as a consequence of this first iniquity, man is hopelessly lost in a state of sin in which he has been held captive since this fall. As a result, he is powerless to follow the path of obedience and righteousness by his own free will.

Rather, missionaries contend, because all are born with an innate and uncontrollable lust for sin, man can do nothing to merit his own salvation. In essence, man is totally depraved, and true free will is far beyond his grasp. “Totally depraved” may seem to be a harsh way for a Christian doctrine to depict mankind’s dire condition, yet this is precisely the term used by the Church to describe man’s desperate, sinful predicament. It is only through faith in Jesus, Christendom concludes, that hopeless man can be saved.

You stated in your question that the doctrine of original sin teaches that “all human beings are born with an innate tendency to disobey God.” While this statement is superficially correct, it fails to convey the far-reaching scope of this Church doctrine. Although Christianity does teach that the entire human race is born with an evil inclination, this tenet encompasses a far more extreme position than the one that you briefly outlined.

In fact, missionaries insist that as a result of the fall in the Garden of Eden, man’s unquenchable desire for sin is virtually ungovernable. In Christian terms, man is not inclined toward sin but more accurately is a slave to sin. As a result, the Church concludes, short of converting to Christianity, humanity can do nothing to save itself from hell.

Bear in mind, there is good reason for the Church’s uncompromising stand on this cherished doctrine. The founders of Christianity understood that if man, through his devotion and obedience to God, can save himself from eternal damnation, the Church would very little to offer their parishioners. Moreover, if righteousness can be achieved through submission to the commandments outlined in the Torah, what possible benefit could Jesus’ death provide for mankind? Such selfprobing thoughts, however, were unimaginable to those who shaped Christian theology.

Despite the zealous position missionaries take as they defend this creed, the Christian doctrine of original sin is profoundly hostile to the central teachings of the Jewish Scriptures. The Torah loudly condemns the alien teaching that man is unable to freely choose good over evil, life over death. This is not a hidden or ambiguous message in the Jewish Scriptures. On the contrary, it is proclaimed in Moses’ famed teachings to the children of Israel. - Rabbi Singer
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
shunyadragon said:
No it is not!!!! Please cite in detail.
Click to expand...
LOL, Yes it is!!!!! Genesis 2:8 "And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed." The Garden of Eden was paradise, and man was there, but was subsequently ejected.
 
Thomas said:
LOL, Yes it is!!!!! Genesis 2:8 "And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed." The Garden of Eden was paradise, and man was there, but was subsequently ejected.
Click to expand...

This does not explain 'Original Sin' in that these acts by Adam and Eve as a stain of Sin carried by all future human generations.
 
shunyadragon said:
This does not explain 'Original Sin' in that these acts by Adam and Eve as a stain of Sin carried by all future human generations.
Click to expand...
It was a response to your comment to the points I made:
shunyadragon said:
b) Man's state was paradisical,
c) Man lost that state,
d) Man has suffered ever since.
I seriously question the highlighted in terms of Jewish belief systems. It resembles a warmed over rewording of Original Sin.
Click to expand...
Genesis 2 and 3 states clearly that man was created, lived in Paradise, disobeyed the Divine command not to eat of the fruit of the tree and was therefore expelled, and that his seed suffer the state into which Adam and Eve fell.

It's quite clear, really.
 
Thomas said:
It was a response to your comment to the points I made:

Genesis 2 and 3 states clearly that man was created, lived in Paradise, disobeyed the Divine command not to eat of the fruit of the tree and was therefore expelled, and that his seed suffer the state into which Adam and Eve fell.

It's quite clear, really.
Click to expand...

From the historical Jewish view this is not 'quite clear,' and again this does not explain the belief that 'these acts by Adam and Eve as a stain of Sin carried by all future human generations.'
 
shunyadragon said:
From the historical Jewish view this is not 'quite clear,' and again this does not explain the belief that 'these acts by Adam and Eve as a stain of Sin carried by all future human generations.'
Click to expand...
What point are you not clear on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top