Original Sin

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Original Sin

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.



"Original sin is the Christian doctrine that humans inherit a tainted nature and a proclivity to sin through the fact of birth. Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.

The doctrine of original sin began to emerge in the 3rd century but only became fully formed with the writings of Augustine of Hippo (354–430), who was the first author to use the phrase "original sin" (Latin: peccatum originale). Augustine's conception of original sin was based on a mistranslated passage in Paul the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans, and scholars have debated whether the passage supports Augustine's view.

Augustine's formulation of original sin became popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated original sin with concupiscence (or "hurtful desire"), affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom to do good and proposed that original sin involved a loss of free will except to sin.


Roman Catholicism
Catholic veiw: "Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.
By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.
Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence")


Lutheranism
The Lutheran Churches teach that original sin "is a root and fountain-head of all actual sins.
Martin Luther (1483–1546) asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception.


Jehovah's Witnesses
The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race . This is elucidated by St Paul: ‘Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin , and so death spread to all men because all men sinned’ (Rom.5:12).
This text, which formed the Church’s basis of her teaching on ‘ original sin ’, may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef’ ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as ‘because all men sinned’ but also ‘in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned’. Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what ‘ original sin ’ means.
source


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
(Mormon)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) rejects the doctrine of original sin.

Methodism

Methodist theology teaches that a believer is made free from original sin when he/she is entirely sanctified.
(["entirely sanctified" or] Christian perfection is the name given to various teachings within Christianity that describe the process of achieving spiritual maturity or perfection. The ultimate goal of this process is union with God characterized by pure love of God and other people as well as personal holiness or sanctification.
source

Eastern Christianity
The Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholic Churches' version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil, "for the devil sins from the beginning (1 John iii. 8)".[74] The Eastern Church never subscribed to Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt. The Church does not interpret "original sin" as having anything to do with transmitted guilt but with transmitted mortality. Because Adam sinned, all humanity shares not in his guilt but in the same punishment .
source unless otherwise indicated


So, what do think of original sin; a third century Christian doctrine created to invest salvation with greater significance, a concept of questionable value, or concocted hogwash?


.

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4296
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 193 times
Been thanked: 494 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #11

Post by 2timothy316 »

Miles wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 5:08 pm
1213 wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 5:06 am
Miles wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 4:44 pm ...So, what do think of original sin; a third century Christian doctrine created to invest salvation with greater significance, a concept of questionable value, or concocted hogwash?
I have understood sin means that person rejects God or is in separation from God. By what the Bible tells, people rejected God in the beginning and were expelled from paradise to this place. That was the original, first sin, rejection of God. Because of that, we are also born in separation from God and in that way affected by the original sin. I think that is the correct Biblical meaning for it. And luckily there is a way to back to God.
If you told your young daughter not to eat the candy sitting on the table, but she ate it anyway, would you consider this to be a rejection of yourself?




.
Using the example of a 'young person' is always a bad example to use. A&E were not some 8 year old couple who didn't know better. The were likely around 100 years old. (Gen 5:3) Also, using one piece of candy is a bad example as well. A&E had all the other trees of the garden to eat from, so there should be 100s of pieces of candy on the table and only one that shouldn't be eaten. If you told your young daughter all the pieces of candy she can eat and they all taste the same but the one here in front of you she can't eat. Then your daughter grabs the piece of candy in front of you, you really don't think she is rejecting you and your authority as her father? Of course she is. If you don't follow through with the consequences of her on purpose grabbing the candy you told her not to, then no one should respect your authority.

A better analogy would the relationship between an employee and a supervisor. The supervisor tells the person under them to be on time into work every weekday at 8AM and leave at 5PM. The employee does for about a month. Then the employee decides to start coming to the office at 8:30AM and leave 30 mins early to boot. This is clearly a rejection of the supervisors authority as they know what the supervisor expects of them. The employee might reason with themselves, 'its only 30 minutes, what's the big deal' much like Eve convinced herself that the fruit was simply just a tree with fruit that was 'good for food'. (Gen 3:6) A&E convinced themselves that they knew what was better for themselves. That they should be the ones should decide what was best for themselves what they can and cannot eat. After all that was the thought that Satan put into their head at Genesis 3:5 that they would "be like God, knowing good and bad." This is no different from the employee that usurps their supervisor's authority by deciding what time to work is best. Is that employee rejecting the authority of their supervisor? Absolutely!

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15237
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 974 times
Been thanked: 1799 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #12

Post by William »

As far as the Christian Mythology goes, once humankind were cursed with death and expelled from a happy existence to an horrific one, what else could possibly happen but sin?

This, because the whole experiment forced human beings to be separate and individual and not knowing one another's thoughts, having to band together into familiar groups and subsequently create rules which went some way to protecting those societies from self destruction. Breaking these laws is "sin" - but in that, it need be recognized that many laws are simply overreacting to free will - possibly created by fearful humans as part of the protection policies.

The additional problem of a religious idea of a Creator who forced this upon us, is that it creates a serious stain on the nature of being human, and subsequent unnecessary guilt and suicidal tendencies, acts of vengeance, being uncaring, and all else which comes from such thinking.

If the universe was accepted more for what it is [face value] and that we are not somehow being punished for being human, and that there was no actual 'fall' through 'original sin' such re-thinking can do wonders for the individual psyche, but far easier said than done as we have to contend with the fallout of those old ways of thinking and the pressure to conform to such beliefs, so as to deal with the fact that we exist in an environment which allows for horrific things to happen to us, and we tend to equate pain and suffering with punishment, so it is no easy ask... because if a Creator placed us here, we have to work out other - non-malevolent reasons as to why that was the case.

Image

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 22820
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 892 times
Been thanked: 1331 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #13

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Miles wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 9:55 pm

Exodus 20:5

5 You are not to bow down to them in worship or serve them, because I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the guilt of parents on children, to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.
DOES EXODUS 20:5 INDICATE GOD PUNISHES DESCENDANTS FOR THEIR FORFATHER'S SINS?

No it does not. Firstly, note the context : punishment is only applied to individuals that personally " hate God" . So Exodus 20 was not mandating the punishments of innocent descendent regardless or their actions. While some translations choose to emphasis this, the Hebrew expression for "visiting (Hebrew : paqad) the sins " actually has a broader meaning which include "go see, look, reckon, (call to) remember(-brance) ...." . Future generations would not escape Gods scrutinty and judgement should they commit the same sins of their father . Logically in the context of the Israelites agreement to obey God's law, it was not being suggested that future generations would suffer regardless of if they followed the law or not.


SUFFERING THE CONSEQUENCES

The law examines the results of their forefathers bad choices. Even the innocent would be affected by the misdeeds of their forefathers. Note the following commentary:

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Sons and remote descendants inherit the consequences of their fathers' sins, in disease, poverty, captivity, with all the influences of bad example and evil communications. (See Leviticus 26:39; Lamentations 5:7 following)
And the following translations ...

EXODUS 20:5b

... I lay the sins of the parents upon their children; the entire family is affected—even children in the third and fourth generations of those who reject me. - The New Living Translation
Christian Standard Bible
... bringing the consequences of the fathers’ iniquity on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me

JW



RELATED POSTS
Are Adams children being punished for HIS Sin?
viewtopic.php?p=381280#p381280

Does Romans 9 support the teaching of predestination?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 42#P388142
To learn more please go to other posts related to...

FREE WILL, ORIGINAL SIN and ...THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND BAD
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3935
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1250 times
Been thanked: 802 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #14

Post by Purple Knight »

Miles wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 11:24 pmOne doesn't have to believe Batman and Robin actually exist in order to speculate about their possible homosexual relationship and come to a conclusion about it. Believe it or not, people have actually done so.
Of course I believe people have done so, and despite the parodies of it, Bruce Wayne is not a pedo. If the writer is alive, we can say this because the writer almost certainly didn't intend it.

But people die and whatever canon is left is only in the minds of those who know the story. Maybe in fifty or even twenty years, paedophilia will be the next big thing in the tolerance spotlight. Maybe that won't be bad. And maybe everyone will say, oh, look, those poor characters that had to hide what they were due to a time that didn't get them. If the writer doesn't exist anymore, and the characters only exist in the minds of people who overwhelmingly want to believe they're lovers... then they are, because they're not real.

If God is real then he wants what he wants and that's the end of it, though arguably he can change his mind. I don't know how anyone could ever change their mind and be perfect, but it depends on how you consider perfection.

If God only exists in the minds of people who overwhelmingly don't believe he wants blood guilt, then he doesn't want blood guilt. Whoever wrote that he did want blood guilt is dead, and so his concept of this character has died as well. It would be nice if people seriously considered what was written down about this character God and what originally built the canon, but if God is fictional they're under no obligation to do so. And the realists will scream and they'll cry that this new interpretation isn't what Spiderman or God or whoever was truly supposed to be, and that these new writers have "ruined it" somehow, but canon evolves, and it's possible for Spiderman to be something today that he wasn't yesterday precisely because Spiderman is fictional.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 8:36 pmFuture generations would not escape Gods scrutiny and judgement should they commit the same sins of their father. Logically in the context of the Israelites agreement to obey God's law, it was not being suggested that future generations would suffer regardless of if they followed the law or not.
Yes, you certainly can reinterpret the passage to mean that the great-grandchildren of a blasphemer are not guilty of, or punished directly for, blasphemy, unless they are also guilty of blasphemy. This makes sense but only up to a point because it then strongly implies that the fifth generation, the great-great-great grandchildren of the blasphemer, are free to commit blasphemy and not be punished.

The way you interpret it, the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, this is not talking about the third and fourth generation of a blasphemer's seed, but about a family of blasphemers who continue to commit blasphemy generation after generation. The way you interpret it, the third and fourth generations grow up on their grandfather's knee learning to laugh and jeer at God, and that's why they're guilty: They also commit blasphemy.

The problem is what the meaning of specifying to the third and fourth generation could possibly be under this interpretation. Logically speaking, the passage is either condemning [individually] innocent people to suffer the guilt of the blasphemer, or it's giving generations five and after a pass even if those generations continue to commit blasphemy.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #15

Post by Miles »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 8:36 pm
Miles wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 9:55 pm

Exodus 20:5

5 You are not to bow down to them in worship or serve them, because I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the guilt of parents on children, to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.
DOES EXODUS 20:5 INDICATE GOD PUNISHES DESCENDANTS FOR THEIR FORFATHER'S SINS?
I never said it did because the verse I quoted doesn't. If you re-read it you'll see it says god visits the "guilt of the parents on the children," whatever that may be, which may well be some form of punishment. Who knows?

(DOES EXODUS 20:5 INDICATE GOD PUNISHES DESCENDANTS FOR THEIR FORFATHER'S SINS?) No it does not.
Well your bible, the New World Translation (2013 Revision), certainly does.

" 5 You must not bow down to them nor be enticed to serve them,+ for I, Jehovah your God, am a God who requires exclusive devotion,+ bringing punishment for the error of fathers upon sons, upon the third generation and upon the fourth generation of those who hate me,"

Firstly, note the context : punishment is only applied to individuals that personally " hate God" .
So what? Obviously were it not for the "errors of fathers" the punishment for hating god would not be meted out among the following generations. That's what the whole connection between the two is about; the "errors of fathers" sets the stage for punishing the generations who follow and hate god. Obviously those people who hated god, but weren't related to the mentioned fathers, would not be punished, or at least not as badly as the descendants were, which is why I consider god's decision to be moral barbarism.


.

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 277 times
Been thanked: 421 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #16

Post by historia »

[Replying to Miles in post #11]

I think it was G.K. Chesterton who said that original sin is "the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved."

Sounds about right.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8667
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2257 times
Been thanked: 2368 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #17

Post by Tcg »

historia wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 4:07 pm [Replying to Miles in post #11]

I think it was G.K. Chesterton who said that original sin is "the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved."

Sounds about right.
Did he ever get around to providing that proof?


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1463
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 178 times
Been thanked: 605 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #18

Post by Diagoras »

2timothy316 wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 8:54 am Using the example of a 'young person' is always a bad example to use. A&E were not some 8 year old couple who didn't know better. The were likely around 100 years old. (Gen 5:3)
There’s no clearly specified age at which Adam and Eve ate the fruit, but before they did, they had no knowledge of good or evil, so developmentally seem closer to eight than a hundred.
Also, using one piece of candy is a bad example as well. A&E had all the other trees of the garden to eat from, so there should be 100s of pieces of candy on the table and only one that shouldn't be eaten.
Ok, let’s say that.
If you told your young daughter all the pieces of candy she can eat and they all taste the same but the one here in front of you she can't eat. Then -


Then the next-door neighbour comes round and persuades a rather naive young girl that the ‘special’ candy isn’t forbidden.
- your daughter grabs the piece of candy in front of you
<bolding mine>

No, let’s say you were out of the room when this neighbour was around.
you really don't think she is rejecting you and your authority as her father? Of course she is.
Or you didn’t demonstrate why that candy is special by locking it away in a high cupboard, or didn’t forewarn her of the dangers of talking to strangers, or kept a closer eye on her in the first place. This daughter has been faced with two authorities, and she has no experience of right and wrong. But if you want to kick her out of the house, then hey, you’re in charge.

I don’t think she’s the one doing any rejection.

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4296
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 193 times
Been thanked: 494 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #19

Post by 2timothy316 »

Diagoras wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 6:55 pm
2timothy316 wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 8:54 am Using the example of a 'young person' is always a bad example to use. A&E were not some 8 year old couple who didn't know better. The were likely around 100 years old. (Gen 5:3)
There’s no clearly specified age at which Adam and Eve ate the fruit, but before they did, they had no knowledge of good or evil, so developmentally seem closer to eight than a hundred.
Yet clearly you think they were at an age of not knowing what a rule was only because it fits your dogma.

Yet, you never answered my question. Why did Eve repeat the law when Satan said why doesn't she eat from the tree. Why did she offer resistance all? Run by me what you think her cognitive reason do so for me please. What would a person that didn't understand the difference between right and wrong would say. Enlighten us all please.

BTW Adam was 130 when he had his first child. (Gen 5:3) We know Adam had no children in the garden. Just how long do you think God let them stay in the garden of Eden?

You say, "so developmentally seem closer to eight than a hundred" what is your scriptural bases for this claim? Or is this speculation?

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1463
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 178 times
Been thanked: 605 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #20

Post by Diagoras »

2timothy316 wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 8:36 pm
Diagoras wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 6:55 pmThere’s no clearly specified age at which Adam and Eve ate the fruit, but before they did, they had no knowledge of good or evil, so developmentally seem closer to eight than a hundred.
Yet clearly you think they were at an age of not knowing what a rule was only because it fits your dogma.
Their actual age (unknown) is irrelevant. They’ve had no knowledge of what’s good or evil, so how would they understand the concept or implications of a rule in the first place?
Yet, you never answered my question. Why did Eve repeat the law when Satan said why doesn't she eat from the tree. Why did she offer resistance all?
This wasn’t your question. You’ve posted once to this thread and asked about rejecting authority. I have answered that with an opinion, which is what was wanted.
Run by me what you think her cognitive reason do so for me please. What would a person that didn't understand the difference between right and wrong would say. Enlighten us all please.
On review, I stand by my previous answer to the question about authority. Conjecture about Eve’s state of mind and critical thought processes during an exchange with a deity and a talking snake is not likely to further our mutual understanding here.
BTW Adam was 130 when he had his first child. (Gen 5:3) We know Adam had no children in the garden. Just how long do you think God let them stay in the garden of Eden?
Somewhere between a day and a couple of years, I reckon. I’d be interested in reading any sources purporting to pin down the length of their horticultural sojourn. Genesis 1.28 states that God was keen for his human prototypes to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ but they didn’t have the opportunity to do as God wanted before Eve started chatting to that snake. Why would they delay starting a family? Were they saving for a house? Adam had a good steady job already.
You say, "so developmentally seem closer to eight than a hundred" what is your scriptural bases for this claim? Or is this speculation?
Could be speculation, yes. So much detail is missing from either Genesis creation account that we are all forced to speculate on much of it. But we can at least construct analogies, such as the ‘table of candy’ one, and then try to make sense of what’s in the bible from them. All I’m doing here is pointing out where your analogy differs from scripture in ways that weaken your argument.

Post Reply