Original Sin

Not sure yet.

The thought was inspired by what Earl wrote, and he and I, like Wil, go way back ... as I have no way to respond to Earl other than here, I thought it worth a shot, to see where it might go.
 
BigJoeNobody said:
I'm thinking the biggest reason Satan's Fall (regardless of the new age Biblical style or Islamic style) isn't called the "Original Sin" is because Satan's fall wasn't of a human nature. He nor anyone involved was human. his sin only was original for his kind.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. AS I was taught. In the first earth age, the time spoken of in Genesis 1:1, II Peter 3, and Jeremiah 4:18 to the end of the chapter, we were not in flesh bodies, but rather in spiritual form. The same spirit now occupying the flesh. The 1st earth age ended with the fall of Satan. That fall is the reason we are now in flesh form and are born with a propensity to sin.
 
Aussie Thoughts said:
Not exactly. AS I was taught. In the first earth age, the time spoken of in Genesis 1:1, II Peter 3, and Jeremiah 4:18 to the end of the chapter, we were not in flesh bodies, but rather in spiritual form. The same spirit now occupying the flesh. The 1st earth age ended with the fall of Satan. That fall is the reason we are now in flesh form and are born with a propensity to sin.
Click to expand...
interesting idea, but i fail to see that as a primary Christian view. Nor is it really conducive to the rest of the Biblical accounts. Either way, I don't agree, nor disagree that that is a valid view from a biblical standpoint, but not exactly the point of the OP.
 
No...maybe not conventional...but I've heard before that creation in gen1 was in thought... And gen2 was the allegory in physical form...

I believe them both to be allegorical.... And this is discussiin
 
BigJoeNobody said:
I'm thinking the biggest reason Satan's Fall (regardless of the new age Biblical style or Islamic style) isn't called the "Original Sin" is because Satan's fall wasn't of a human nature. He nor anyone involved was human. his sin only was original for his kind.
Click to expand...
But the sin was the same – it was pride in both the case of men and angels – in both cases.

But the Hebrew Scriptures do not discuss the origin of Satan. Personally I find the idea of 'the Adversary' a peculiarly anthropomorphic concept and a flawed one, but then I've never had the chance to discuss it with a Jew, so it could be my understanding.
 
Thomas said:
But the sin was the same – it was pride in both the case of men and angels – in both cases.
Click to expand...
just on the basis of this, and not on the OP, would you say that perhaps pride wasn't the sin, but rather the cause of the sin? From an Islamic viewpoint, both of their sins are that they disobeyed God (Allah). Pride is what drove them to it, at least in Satan. Adam & Eve's pride was in a state of deception. One brought on by Satan, and personally it seems that Satan was trying to prove that he was better than man (Adam, of whom he was commanded to bow to but refused).
 
BigJoeNobody said:
just on the basis of this, and not on the OP, would you say that perhaps pride wasn't the sin, but rather the cause of the sin?
Click to expand...
The way I was taught and a number of non-denominational Christian ministries down here teach this, Satan's pride was both the original sin and the cause thereof. Sounds contradictory I know, but the way the story goes, Satan had worked his way into the high position he held and was quite proud of it. This, in and of itself was not the sin though. Being in such a high position, he became privy to God's overall plan. That's when he let pride get the better of him and rebelled. Thus pride became the original sin. He also convinced a 3rd of the angels to be prideful as well and rebel with him. The other 2 thirds did not side with Satan, but except for a select few, 7000 I believe, they did noting to stop the rebellion. This became part of the original sin and was passed on.
BigJoeNobody said:
...personally it seems that Satan was trying to prove that he was better than man (Adam, of whom he was commanded to bow to but refused).
Click to expand...
That's more or less the way it's taught down here. Satan moved up in the ranks and assumed he would one day take God's place. When he found out that wasn't the case, all hell broke loose!
 
Last edited:
I think I 'Was taught' the same as AussieThoughts.

There is something I can imagine that could develop out of Judaism into the idea of 'Original sin' through the Christian lineage. Cutting away pride is symbolized in sacrifices where fat is cut from meat and in circumcision, and it represents developments inside the person. I image that in ancient times as the Jewish student grows into maturity they achieve a distinctive nature, and this is seen as the difference between a Jewish person and a non-Jewish person. So there is this expected difference that correlates with our modern idea of what a holy person is like relative to a normal person. This for a Jewish person (what would have been in the past I think) the ideal which their religion was taking them towards, but in Christianity there is a shedding of some of the requirements of particular Jewish practices. Rather then a progression towards Judaism there is something different as that progression towards Judaism is no longer seen as necessity. For example kosher food is no longer a requirement, and this requirement is dropped very early on in Christian circles. In other words many previously 'Jewish' activities are seen as extraneous to the goal of achieving that holy nature which various Jewish groups pursue. In general there is among Christians suddenly no difference between the Jew and the non Jew, so all of these Jewish behaviors such as not eating ham are no longer regarded as necessary. So there is no longer a difference for Christians, and this corresponds I think with what today is called 'Original sin' though for most it has gotten a completely new meaning. All of this is mainly just...guessing and prodding.
 
waggindraggin said:
I think I 'Was taught' the same as AussieThoughts.

There is something I can imagine that could develop out of Judaism into the idea of 'Original sin' through the Christian lineage. Cutting away pride is symbolized in sacrifices where fat is cut from meat and in circumcision, and it represents developments inside the person. I image that in ancient times as the Jewish student grows into maturity they achieve a distinctive nature, and this is seen as the difference between a Jewish person and a non-Jewish person. So there is this expected difference that correlates with our modern idea of what a holy person is like relative to a normal person. This for a Jewish person (what would have been in the past I think) the ideal which their religion was taking them towards, but in Christianity there is a shedding of some of the requirements of particular Jewish practices. Rather then a progression towards Judaism there is something different as that progression towards Judaism is no longer seen as necessity. For example kosher food is no longer a requirement, and this requirement is dropped very early on in Christian circles. In other words many previously 'Jewish' activities are seen as extraneous to the goal of achieving that holy nature which various Jewish groups pursue. In general there is among Christians suddenly no difference between the Jew and the non Jew, so all of these Jewish behaviors such as not eating ham are no longer regarded as necessary. So there is no longer a difference for Christians, and this corresponds I think with what today is called 'Original sin' though for most it has gotten a completely new meaning. All of this is mainly just...guessing and prodding.
Click to expand...
If I followed you correctly, I disagree with the conclusion of loss of requirements, but overall understand where you are coming from.

Overall is it a unanimous idea that the Christian idea that Jesus (PBUH) had to die to makeup for the sins of Adam (PBUH) is not a thing? Which is where I was going with this originally.
 
This may clear things up a bit or confuse them further as the case may be. A lot more to it than just the sins of Adam. Of particular note is the passage on how sin began. Sounds a lot like what Aussie was saying. I have no affiliation with this church by the way and am unfamiliar with their teachings. I just stumbled onto the page and thought it interesting.

http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/what-was-the-purpose-of-christs-death
 
It is clear after reading that reference that I made a good move (for me at least) as I read the same passages and got a completely different understanding... I'm not sure it applies to the question, but it is certainly a better explanation than the "Original sin" theory passed off in many circles here.
 
Thomas said:
Hi Earl –

I think – in terms of interfaith – a fruitful area of dialogue could be in the contemplation of the implication of the Scriptural passage "And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold..." (Genesis 3:6) from the standpoint of the Sacred Scribe who knows that this was a monstrous deception, that the fruit might well be 'good', 'fair' and 'delightful' on the surface, but in essence it is nothing of the sort.

Here I see a correlation with the First Noble Truth of Buddhism, in that 'all conditional phenomena and experiences are not ultimately satisfying', and this is precisely what the sacred scribe is alluding to. And that is what the dialogue in the Garden is all about, and indeed, everything in the garden was lovely until man fell under the illusion of the superficially satisfying...

Human nature seems inescapably inclined to the contingent, and "that craving for and clinging to what is pleasurable..." which inevitably results "...in becoming, rebirth, dissatisfaction, and redeath" to quote the Second Noble Truth, which is comparable to the warning Adam was given when he was told why the fruit was forbidden.
Click to expand...
Actually, Thomas, my notion of "original sin" is based on Buddhism in that Buddhism posits that there are 6 worlds or rather realms 1 can be born into based on the level of one's spiritual awareness, some subhuman, some "godlike." They feel the human level is the 1 most auspicious for achieving enlightenment given the right balance of suffering and consciousness-the god realms being too easy. So it is that each realm is distinguished by its own particular range of conscious awareness and what I meant is that being born into our realm implies we all start out with a particular range of conscious abilities as a starting point which are relatively limited compared to the endpoint. Though Buddhists do not employ the notion of sin, they would use the phrase karma vikapa to indicate forces that bring us to a certain point in time-space. So, I'm taking liberties in saying that "original sin" is the general karma vikapa of consciousness-time-space which gives us our relatively limited starting point, the human condition. We wouldn't be here if we didn't have that karma/"original sin."
 
waggindraggin said:
... but in Christianity there is a shedding of some of the requirements of particular Jewish practices.
Click to expand...
Yes. It's a 'spirit and letter' thing.

waggindraggin said:
In general there is among Christians suddenly no difference between the Jew and the non Jew, so all of these Jewish behaviors such as not eating ham are no longer regarded as necessary.
Click to expand...
Well Paul saw this profoundly, that if God is God, then God is not just the God of the Jews, nor do the Jews have exclusive access to God.

waggindraggin said:
So there is no longer a difference for Christians, and this corresponds I think with what today is called 'Original sin' though for most it has gotten a completely new meaning.
Click to expand...
Well it got its meaning in relation to the Christian idea of Divine Union, or theosis. Then you have the idea that what keeps man apart from God is man, not God. And the cause of this was Adam's error – the sin of the Primordial Couple – and it is this sin – this self-willed 'missing the mark – that determined the relationship from then on. So in that sense 'Original Sin' is the burden we all have to carry, the rejection of God in favour of the self, and humanity has been oriented to self from Adam on.

Whether the sin is original or not in light of Satan's fall (being prior to Adam's fall) is semantics and irrelevant. For one, it's the same sin in angels as it is in man: Pride. For the other, that Satan fell does not mean man would fall, man is not burdened by Satan's sin and is capable of resisting Satan and his minions. So Adam's sin constitutes the original sin, as far as man is concerned. But sin was always a possible, from the moment God endowed His creature with free will.
 
there is no original sin.

if there were original sin Moses books would mention it
 
I'm pretty sure that Baha'is reject the concept of original sin accepted by many Christians.... We believe man has essentially been created good and has no inherent "sin".. It's true that as God grants freewill to man there is a choice and sometimes man chooses to deny God or the teachings that are right for him. There is also no "evil force" at war with God we believe.
 
Aussie Thoughts said:
No Satan in Baha'i or Satan is not evil?
Click to expand...
In Islam (to which I believe Baha'is Borrow the view) We believe Satan is the influencer of evil, yet still bends to the will of Allah when commanded. 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top