Does Original Sin Exist?

[ottaia]

If we believe the Adam and Eve story (which I don't), if Adam and Eve didn't committ original sin, then they would be the only people on earth.

Another story (Jewish I think) said that the first people didn't sin so God had to make more people so someone would sin.

Is Original Sin just an antiquated concept to make people fear Hell?

 

[I <3 Abraham]

If we believe the Adam and Eve story (which I don't), if Adam and Eve didn't committ original sin, then they would be the only people on earth.

Genesis 3 lets us know what the consequences of man's disobedience are. Amongst other things God says that he will "greatly increase" labor pains for women. This, I think, lets us see that the possibility for having children was there in the garden, but Adam and Eve just hadn't had one yet.

Another story (Jewish I think) said that the first people didn't sin so God had to make more people so someone would sin.

Is Original Sin just an antiquated concept to make people fear Hell?

I've never heard of that first part and I'm pretty sure it's not a Jeish story (their creation story is pretty specific about what person was made first).

Original sin is not antiquated, and I think that if it is thought over seriously, it reveals a lot about our own nature as a being. We are inherently curious and desirous of things we can't have. But we are also vain and prideful. Again, in Chapter 3 Eve muses that once they ate of the tree they would be "like God, knowing Good and Evil". This desire, to become equal with our betters no matter the consequences, is easily perceived amongst humanity. Paradise Lost is an excellent book and, although not canonical, does make the original sin very understandable and, almost, correct to human ears.

God bless.

-J

 

[elman]

If we believe the Adam and Eve story (which I don't), if Adam and Eve didn't committ original sin, then they would be the only people on earth.

Another story (Jewish I think) said that the first people didn't sin so God had to make more people so someone would sin.

Is Original Sin just an antiquated concept to make people fear Hell?

Original Sin is, in my opinion, a man made concept. Ezekiel 18 clearly teaches that we kill our own soul with our own sin and no one else's sin kills our soul and we kill no one's soul by our sin but our own. I also think the concept of an eternal place of torture is a man made idea. The Greeks(Plato)thought it up before Christianity seemed to adopt the idea. Most of Christian and Jewish scripture seems to teach that hell is death. Death is not eternal torture but the absence of existence. I think this scripture from Proverbs is more typical of most of the rest of scripture--Prov 11:19

19 The truly righteous man attains life,
but he who pursues evil goes to his death.
(from New International Version)

I know Jesus talked about the rich man in hell, but a close look at the parable will reveal Jesus was not teaching about the details of the after life, but trying to teach us of the fact that money is not evidence of being right with God and lack of money is not evidence of not being right with God.

 

[HouseApe]

If we believe the Adam and Eve story (which I don't), if Adam and Eve didn't committ original sin, then they would be the only people on earth.

Another story (Jewish I think) said that the first people didn't sin so God had to make more people so someone would sin.

Is Original Sin just an antiquated concept to make people fear Hell?

It is an antiquated concept in order to explain the purpose of Jesus' crucifixion. How could God die if not for some glorious purpose? It was made up in order for the religion to appeal to Greek sensibilities.

However, I think a pure reading of Genesis, unfiltered by western Christian apologetics, would show that much of the book was about the fact the God does not take kindly to humans trying to become gods themselves.

 

[elman]

It is an antiquated concept in order to explain the purpose of Jesus' crucifixion. How could God die if not for some glorious purpose? It was made up in order for the religion to appeal to Greek sensibilities.

However, I think a pure reading of Genesis, unfiltered by western Christian apologetics, would show that much of the book was about the fact the God does not take kindly to humans trying to become gods themselves.

I tend to agree and He does not like people hurting each other either.

 

[Rev. Smith]

If we believe the Adam and Eve story (which I don't), if Adam and Eve didn't committ original sin, then they would be the only people on earth.

Another story (Jewish I think) said that the first people didn't sin so God had to make more people so someone would sin.

Is Original Sin just an antiquated concept to make people fear Hell?

When I say that I believe the Adam and Eve story, I don't mean that I think it is literaly true. I believe that most of the revelation to the early Prophets and to the later Christians as well (John in Revelation) was the product of visions brought to the writers by the Holy Spirit. They wrote as best they could what they saw, felt and understood.

Original Sin was a doctrine offered by St. Augestine of Hippo, mainly to refute Peligious of Britan. Pelegious proposed the radical concept that humans are morally responsable for their actions. Sin was not innate to the man, but was a choice he makes. Peligious proposed that babies, having no stain of sin, who died would not be sent to hell for torment. Augestine (swell fella, huh) proposed that they would - because they bore the stain of original sin. This seems to have been based on a single line in Romans, "Through one man sin came into the world and through one man, death"

Now the problem with this is the a reading of Genesis does not lead to that conclusuion. In fact God is clearly reported to have decided to put man out of the Garden not to punish him, but to prevent him from eating of the tree of life, becoming immortal. This implies that man was not already immortal. It also implies that we did not "fall" and were put out of the garden as punishment, but rather a preventative measure.

Which leads to the question - Why were the trees of knowledge and life even in the garden if God did not intend to have us partake of them at some point? Was god so weak and ineffective that he could not control access to these two important plants (or whatever it was that the image of the "trees" represent)?

It seems to me that a reading of the creation story with an empty mind (not looking for proof of our assumption, but rather letting the scripture form our assumptions) leads to the conclusion that Adam and Eve failed to follow God's instructions for them, that they ate of fruit that they were not yet intended to eat (but that they would be given at some point since they were placed just there).

Now given the even greator sin than unauthorised snacking that God would later contend with in his creatures and either wipe us out and start over (Noah) or locally wipe out creatures and replace (Sodom and Gomorrah) or work with us and correct (every prophet thereafter) - it seems to me that if there was a "fall" that damned all men it was much later. The one man Paul spoke of could have been Jephtah (who offered a human sacrafice to God for victory, his own daughter - much nastier than eating fruit).

God claims that he is loving, merciful and just through all of the prophets, and in person whiole incarnate on earth. Original Sin is none of these things. Augestine simply got it wrong.

 

[KCDAD]

I think it must br obvious that the Genesis accout of Adam and Eve is a allegory or an outright fable depending on how one views those terms. Adam (mankind) and Eve (desire) can not possibly be the first and only humans for a lot of reasons. The least of which is the problem of if the Genesis story is correct, Adam was created some time before Eve, and Eve was created later as an afterthought. If Eve was an afterthought, why would Adam have been created with genitals that would be useless without Eve?
Charles

 

[FadingWhispers3]

I do believe that original sin of a kind exists, but not what is commonly thought of. When someone says original sin, usually they mean something to the effect that someone can do no wrong their entire life and still not be good enough for heaven. Be that as it may or may not, it somewhat contradicts the idea that God judges people for what they are responsible for rather than what their ancestor did.

If the Adam and Eve story is not merely allegory, then the kind of original sin I believe exists is different from what I have described above. The 'original sin', then is the severing of honest and open relationship between God and mankind as well between human beings themselves. As in the garden of Eden God walked among man so close was their relationship. Now, though, you have to 'work at it' although perhaps work is the wrong term... It is the idea that we must hide things from each other and from ourselves.

Moreover, I believe that the sin of Adam and Eve was not (or not merely) disobediance... but blame. I think that if they had accepted responsibility for what they had done, and gone to God immediately after rather than hiding, that things would have turned out differently.

 

[ottaia]

When I say that I believe the Adam and Eve story, I don't mean that I think it is literaly true. I believe that most of the revelation to the early Prophets and to the later Christians as well (John in Revelation) was the product of visions brought to the writers by the Holy Spirit. They wrote as best they could what they saw, felt and understood.

Original Sin was a doctrine offered by St. Augestine of Hippo, mainly to refute Peligious of Britan. Pelegious proposed the radical concept that humans are morally responsable for their actions. Sin was not innate to the man, but was a choice he makes. Peligious proposed that babies, having no stain of sin, who died would not be sent to hell for torment. Augestine (swell fella, huh) proposed that they would - because they bore the stain of original sin. This seems to have been based on a single line in Romans, "Through one man sin came into the world and through one man, death"

Now the problem with this is the a reading of Genesis does not lead to that conclusuion. In fact God is clearly reported to have decided to put man out of the Garden not to punish him, but to prevent him from eating of the tree of life, becoming immortal. This implies that man was not already immortal. It also implies that we did not "fall" and were put out of the garden as punishment, but rather a preventative measure.

Which leads to the question - Why were the trees of knowledge and life even in the garden if God did not intend to have us partake of them at some point? Was god so weak and ineffective that he could not control access to these two important plants (or whatever it was that the image of the "trees" represent)?

It seems to me that a reading of the creation story with an empty mind (not looking for proof of our assumption, but rather letting the scripture form our assumptions) leads to the conclusion that Adam and Eve failed to follow God's instructions for them, that they ate of fruit that they were not yet intended to eat (but that they would be given at some point since they were placed just there).

Now given the even greator sin than unauthorised snacking that God would later contend with in his creatures and either wipe us out and start over (Noah) or locally wipe out creatures and replace (Sodom and Gomorrah) or work with us and correct (every prophet thereafter) - it seems to me that if there was a "fall" that damned all men it was much later. The one man Paul spoke of could have been Jephtah (who offered a human sacrafice to God for victory, his own daughter - much nastier than eating fruit).

God claims that he is loving, merciful and just through all of the prophets, and in person whiole incarnate on earth. Original Sin is none of these things. Augestine simply got it wrong.

Great response Rev.

I too agree that placing trees into the garden then saying, "Don't touch" is just stupid. If God made us, God would know our psychology and know that the minute you say, "Don't" the creation will.

Maybe a bigger implication of my OP would be "If God is all good, why would God then allow evil into the world." But that is a whole different thread.

 

[UberLutheran]

For me, "original sin" is not an important consideration in Jesus' death.

A concept which is very important to me is the notion of Jesus as God incarnate in human form, so God can experience every single thing we go through as humans: love, disappointment, anger, hunger, thirst, rejection, betrayal -- and all the way down to mundane things such as having rocks in His sandals, having to use the bathroom (because I really don't believe He went 33 years without having to take a dump or a leak!), and up to and including an agonizing death.

Jesus is God's rebuttal when we whine to God and say, "But you don't understand what it's like to be human!" because God does understand and God was human.

As for original sin -- it's not a necessary doctrine. Part of "being human" involves situations where there are no good solutions; part of having a brain, a spinal cord and a cerebral cortex means we're going to feel pain; part of being human involves observing one's environment and learning how to manipulate it -- even a small child learns by example to manipulate its environment to get what it wants. There are plenty of opportunities to sin -- sometimes in some really grand ways, sometimes in some really vile ways -- without having a "sin gene" implanted in our DNA which causes us to "sin" (especially when was is considered a "sin" in one culture is perfectly acceptable in another culture).

And just as part of the job of any responsible parent is to prepare the child to live away from the parent, I believe the reason God told Adam and Eve all about that wonderful, fabulous tree which they must not touch (you know: that glorious, incredibly beautiful tree over there with the luscious fruit hanging down from it - see what I mean? Yeah, that one!) is because God knew full well they'd eat it -- and from that point, they could leave the Garden being fully human, having some charactistics of God, but not all the characteristics of God.

Go back to Eden? And lose the ability to be curious, to explore, to create; or to grieve when someone dies, or to experience joy in receiving something I've really, really wanted? You couldn't pay me enough money to go back there!

It is an antiquated concept in order to explain the purpose of Jesus' crucifixion. How could God die if not for some glorious purpose? It was made up in order for the religion to appeal to Greek sensibilities.

However, I think a pure reading of Genesis, unfiltered by western Christian apologetics, would show that much of the book was about the fact the God does not take kindly to humans trying to become gods themselves.

 

[LovesOfMyLife]

He was really St Augestine of HIPPO???? That's hilarious

That being said, I have never actually understood "Original Sin." I've never understood how people can say that babies born into this world have to be baptized or they go to hell if they die???? what a weird concept.

I think it's antiquated, and man-made.

 

[spinningtutu]

I believe in original sin and in original blessing

 

[Im_A]

If we believe the Adam and Eve story (which I don't), if Adam and Eve didn't committ original sin, then they would be the only people on earth.

Another story (Jewish I think) said that the first people didn't sin so God had to make more people so someone would sin.

Is Original Sin just an antiquated concept to make people fear Hell?

i can't say either way on your last question. i can see where your coming from tho, but i don't want to make a broad judgement, because some people are just trying to understand the nature of the soul after that story and not really trying to make people fear hell.

i personally don't buy into it though. i mean, how can a just God blame the entire world for 2 people's mistakes? i mean if we are supposed to held accountable for our own actions then i can't accept Original Sin. i can't see being condemned to hell at birth when nothing has taken place but the birth process.

but i do believe in heriditary sin. meaning along the lines that sin had to start from some point. whether one wants to believe the Adam and Eve story or not, sin had to start somewhere, and since sin is an action, it had to come from human beings somewhere along the gene pool. and heriditary meaning passed on to all generations.

 

[ottaia]

Paxigoth,

Are you familliar with Matthew Fox and his book Original Blessing? I kind of like his point that a God that would take thousands of years to create the world we have today could not find us totally disgusting. Now greanted, it is very anthropocentric, but it works for me.

 

[spinningtutu]

Actually I'm very fond of Matthew Fox & I agree with the concept of Original Blessing.

 

[Amurphycat]

I believe in it..

I believe that they once were to live forever, and then since they sinned they would have to die..

I also think that if jesus was not crucified that he would live forever too... That he was born to live forever, but died for the sins of man..

 

[goodskeptic]

Is Original Sin just an antiquated concept to make people fear Hell?

Yes.

Isn't it marvelous how well it has worked!

 

[SolomonVII]

I think that original sin describes the basic human reality of the less than perfect, or 'fallen nature' that we are all born with.

Babies are born basically selfish as the center of the universe with the world revolving aroud them. And even if this fufills a deep need for survival, it is an attitude that needs to be contained, redirected, and transcended.

 

[elman]

I think that original sin describes the basic human reality of the less than perfect, or 'fallen nature' that we are all born with.

Babies are born basically selfish as the center of the universe with the world revolving aroud them. And even if this fufills a deep need for survival, it is an attitude that needs to be contained, redirected, and transcended.

Babies do not sin by being hungry or thirsty or wanting to be touched or loved. We are not responsible for the sin of Adam. We are only responsible for our own sin. The concept of original sin is from man and not from God.
Ezek 18:20
20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.
(from New International Version)

 

[Im_A]

If we believe the Adam and Eve story (which I don't), if Adam and Eve didn't committ original sin, then they would be the only people on earth.

Another story (Jewish I think) said that the first people didn't sin so God had to make more people so someone would sin.

Is Original Sin just an antiquated concept to make people fear Hell?

i know i posted on your op ottaia, but i was reading the other responses and something else came to my head.

i still believe in hereditary sin over original sin, but now it's like, what does it matter what we believe on this? some say because it shows the character of God. some want to know, so they can know about themselves. well i don't need to know where or how sin has come from. some say the devil some say humanity, i say, who cares? it's not that i take sin lightly, but we are millions (or thousands if you are a young earth kind of person) of years away from whenever the first action occurred of sin. if sin transferred to us from Adam what does that mean? nothing to me. if sin is inherited from Adam, what does that mean? nothing to me. what does that all mean to the answer that this world has, meaning Jesus? absolutely nothing. God knows, I can speculate what I want. i am convinced of hereditary sin over original sin, but i just wonder though, what does that all matter to our faith?

(please don't take this as me attacking your op ottaia. it's just a wondering thought i have in my head with this ) God Bless you. <><