Original sin

[Wedjat]

So this question has kind of been nagging on my mind the past few days.

Do you have to believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis in order to believe in original sin?

 

[drich0150]

Why would you need to believe in "Original sin?" Isn't it enough that you have sinned personally, and need redemption for it?

 

[Wedjat]

I'm not saying anyone needs to.
I just know some people do believe in original sin, and I'm wondering if you need to believe in the biblical creation story to believe in it. (If Genesis isn't literal, then Adam and Eve never existed, then Eve never took the apple, then there is no original sin.)

Please feel free to point out if I'm missing something.

 

[ephraimanesti]

So this question has kind of been nagging on my mind the past few days.

Do you have to believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis in order to believe in original sin?

MY BROTHER,

Whether you choose to take Genesis literally or allegorically, the Truth of the teaching remains True. To verify that the nature of man is indeed seriously flawed and corrupted by a willful separation from God Who IS Love, one only has to have a basic knowledge of human history, a basic understanding of current events, and an honest appraisal of the contents of their own heart.

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[Digit]

(If Genesis isn't literal, then Adam and Eve never existed, then Eve never took the apple, then there is no original sin.)

I think you jumped a step, in fact two. First up, I'm not really sure about this idea that there is a literal/metaphorical interpretation to reading the Bible, it seems to open up all sorts of loopholes where people can wave the magical metaphorical stick at any passage not to their liking and be done with it. It's not so much whether it's literal or metaphorical, it's more whether the English words best represent the manuscripts original text - or as close as we can get to originals. In the case of Genesis, there are a lot of words that have quite drastically differing meanings. The word for day can mean:

1) day, time, year
a) day (as opposed to night)
b) day (24 hour period)
1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
2) as a division of time
a) a working day, a day's journey
c) days, lifetime (pl.)
d) time, period (general)
e) year
f) temporal references
1) today
2) yesterday
3) tomorrow

So it's a matter of careful study - or, finding a historian/scholar you trust and seeing what they think, to reason out it's precise meaning - just because parts of Genesis may not be directly representational to our 21st Century English, does not mean the entire account is one or the other.

I can't really answer your question, as I sort of feel it requires me to accept a false premise.

 

[Wedjat]

MY BROTHER,

Whether you choose to take Genesis literally or allegorically, the Truth of the teaching remains True. To verify that the nature of man is indeed seriously flawed and corrupted by a willful separation from God Who IS Love, one only has to have a basic knowledge of human history, a basic understanding of current events, and an honest appraisal of the contents of their own heart.

So do babies have a flawed, sinful nature (ie. will an unbaptized baby go to hell). Or does human nature cause an inordinately fast acquisition of sin as soon as we are able to sin?

I realize there are a lot of different views on the subject out there, and I'd like to hear them.

Digit, are you saying that if the translation were perfect, then everything in the bible would be interpreted literally? I'm just not totally sure what your saying. If you believe the question is forcing you to support a false premise, then don't support it. I'd simply like to hear peoples beliefs on the subject of original sin.

 

[Digit]

Digit, are you saying that if the translation were perfect, then everything in the bible would be interpreted literally? I'm just not totally sure what your saying. If you believe the question is forcing you to support a false premise, then don't support it. I'd simply like to hear peoples beliefs on the subject of original sin.

Not at all, I was saying that there is not such thing as a sort of high level switch that determines if an entire book (in this case Genesis) is read literally or metaphorically.

There isn't a 'literal reading' and a 'metaphorical reading'.

There is 'a reading' and depending on the words used and the context and language, we can determine if something is using allegory to make a point, is it a parable telling a tale to teach a morally or ethically important question or is it just stating cold plain facts. Sometimes in the Bible, it swaps between the two from one verse to the next, so it has to be scrutinised quite closely.

That's my point. So asking if original sin requires a literal reading of Genesis is sort of (to me anyhow, I don't speak for everyone) meaning that in order to answer, I have to tacitly confirm that there is "a 'literal reading' and a 'metaphorical reading'." which I don't personally feel is true. At least in a broad sense as applied like that.

 

[Wedjat]

Gotcha, for the most part.

Anyone else?

I guess my question is mostly aimed at Catholics. Original sin seems to play some role in the Catholic faith, thus the reason for baptizing babies, so that the sin that they are born into because of Eve's disobedience doesn't keep them in purgatory.
(again please correct me if I get any of this wrong)
Yet the Catholic church publicly endorses evolution, it just seems to me that something doesn't quite add up.

 

[drich0150]

I guess my question is mostly aimed at Catholics. Original sin seems to play some role in the Catholic faith, thus the reason for baptizing babies, so that the sin that they are born into because of Eve's disobedience doesn't keep them in purgatory.
(again please correct me if I get any of this wrong)
Yet the Catholic church publicly endorses evolution, it just seems to me that something doesn't quite add up.

I personally believe the catholicism (as a religious movement) tries to serve too many masters. In trying to keep everyone happy they have diluted alot of their core christian beliefs.

No matter what some of believe, baptizing babies isn't a scriptural command, but their are OT precedents of publicly dedicating your child to the Lord. So baptizing them isn't a sin either.

 

[ebia]

So this question has kind of been nagging on my mind the past few days.

Do you have to believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis in order to believe in original sin?

That would depend on exactly what one meant by "original sin".

 

[Wedjat]

That would depend on exactly what one meant by "original sin".

What do you mean when you say "origional sin". I want to hear your opinion.

 

[Digit]

What do you mean when you say "origional sin". I want to hear your opinion.

I think the question is more, what do you believe original sin to be - you said the question was nagging you, so what was it about it, that was nagging you?

What is your understanding of original sin?

 

[ebia]

What do you mean when you say "origional sin". I want to hear your opinion.

I don't tend to use the term, at least in part because it can mean quite different things.

 

[Wedjat]

From what I understand, original sin is the sin that every human is born into as a consequence of Eve's disobedience.
Also the curses that God laid on us as a consequence, (ie. men will have to toil in the fields, women will have painful childbirth)

 

[Digit]

My understanding was - and by no means quote me on this - that it was the first rebellion against God by man which introduced sin and death into the world. I've not looked at it extensively, I just recall this one verse that is saying something like, "Just as by one man, so did sin and death enter the world..."

 

[ephraimanesti]

So do babies have a flawed, sinful nature (ie. will an unbaptized baby go to hell). Or does human nature cause an inordinately fast acquisition of sin as soon as we are able to sin?

MY BROTHER,

YES, babies, as are all members of the human race, "have a flawed, sinful nature." As a result, we have been separated from direct contact with God since the Fall--whether or not an actual sin has been committed.

In the case of Infant Baptism, the purpose is to rid the child of the "flawed, sinful nature" through its death and resurrection through the sacrament of Baptism--the same as for an adult. Following its Baptism the child, as are adults, is Chrismated, gifting it with the Holy Spirit to restore the lost direct connection with God. Godparents have the responsibility for keeping the child's Spiritual life in good health and to help the parents raise the child with an understanding of, and obedience to, God's will and a reverence and Loving awe for His Person.

For the Eastern Orthodox, to be guilty of a sin a person must be a willing participant in the sinful act and understand the act's sinfulness in God's eyes. i would expect that this would exclude infants and young children. The Jews consider the age of 13 as "the age of accountability." i am not sure that Eastern Orthodox have set a specific age when willful sins can be committed.

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[Wedjat]

As a result, we have been separated from direct contact with God since the Fall

That fall being...?
Adam and Eve, yes?

 

[freeport]

So this question has kind of been nagging on my mind the past few days.

Do you have to believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis in order to believe in original sin?

I take the words at face value... are there symbolic or possibly symbolic meanings - for instance - in Genesis? Yes.

For instance, in the creation of the world, there is some unusual discussion of the creation of a "lesser light" and "greater light"... and "birds of the air and fish of the sea", and so on... which allude to matters of much greater meaning then what they appear of as first -- just as the "snake" in the Garden of Eden was later positively identified as Satan, who is also identified as "the Destroyer", also called the "Destroying Angel".


What is "original sin", some argue that because Adam sinned, therefore everyone "has sin" from that first sin.


Romans 5

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

...

18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

1 Corinthians 15:22 (New International Version)

22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

"Sin is not taken into account where there is no Law."


Why did Adam die? Was Adam not sinful before he ate of the tree? Put it this way: "only God is good", and as Adam was not God, he could not have been good to begin with.

But as Adam was oblivious to his own sinful state, not even knowing he was naked... he was not culpable for anything and therefore not sentenced to die... until he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil... and then he became culpable for his sinful state and culpable for his sins, which lead to death.

And since then we have all been culpable for our sins.

There may not have been commands which were broken, but as Paul explains elsewhere in Romans, even those "without the Law" show by their own actions that "the Law is written on their hearts". And it has been pointed out by some that in the Law is "all knowledge of Good and Evil". Put one way: the Law basically made conscious what was in the heart of man.

And the fulfillment of the Law can be summed up by "love the Lord your God with all of your heart and strength" and "love your neighbor as yourself". But man does not have such love in his heart -- in fact, how can he possibly love God whom he does not see and so can not comprehend? He can love his children, his wife, his family, his kin and kind... but love for strangers, they do not do.


God, conversely is love.


Man had life, but not eternal life: man had a semblance of the love that is God, but not the overabundant love that is found in eternal life.

Man was created in the Image of God, but is not God.

Was man effectively sinful before Adam ate of the Tree of Knowledge? In one sense, "no", because faith is what brings about righteousness and he would have had complete and yet simple trust in God. So he would not have sinned.

But he still was not God and only God is good.


Why was creation subjected to such "futility"? "So that many Children of God might be born". So that man might become spiritual man, like God, who is Spirit.

 

[Wedjat]

So I take it you do believe in a mostly literal reading of Genesis, as in Adam and Eve existed in real life?

 

[freeport]

So I take it you do believe in a mostly literal reading of Genesis, as in Adam and Eve existed in real life?

Well, I wrote:

I take the words at face value... are there symbolic or possibly symbolic meanings - for instance - in Genesis? Yes.

"Face value" isn't really a term which exists for me...

Adam and Eve real, actual people who were walking around naked without a clue? Yes.

Tree of Knowledge and Tree of Life real? Yes. Symbolic for something else at the same time? Yes.

Creation is full of just such metaphors.


They are what they are... but also have a deeper meaning, a spiritual meaning, which is more important behind it all.


What tends to be hidden is, therefore, the spiritual... and you see in Revelation the spiritual or mystical being equated with the symbolic.


God is Spirit yet created the Heavens and the earth... which is not spirit, it is what it is. It is a firmness, a container. A centralized, solid reality.

It is like a book. Or a movie. Something which has been invented, created. A book is really just a container for a story.

Likewise, in the first portions of Genesis you see both the metaphoric, but also such things as the creation of angels... the world of the dead... the life of Jesus (not Jesus Himself, but His Life in Heavens and earth)... and so on.

There is always a deeper meaning behind the little things of creation: just as a good author writes a book.