Implications of Original Sin

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,119
Location
Yokohama, Japan
The concept of original sin, as I understand it, is that all humans are born sinners because they are descended from Adam and Eve, who sinned.

According to Wikipedia:
Original sin is said to result from the Fall of Man, when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit of a particular tree in the Garden of Eden. (They were permitted to eat fruit from all other trees, making the rule particularly easy to follow but for the sins of pride and disobedience.)

This first sin ("the original sin") is traditionally understood to be the cause of "original sin" (the fallen state of humanity). In addition to Adam and Eve's disobedience in eating fruit from the tree, this overt action was preceded by their decision to not believe God. Whereas God had told them that they would die if they ate of the fruit of this particular tree, Satan in the form of a snake told them that what God had said was not true. Adam and Eve chose to believe Satan's version of the facts rather than believing in what God had said.
Click to expand...

Within this paradigm (not that I believe it, but for the sake of argument) wouldn't one then be responsible not only for the sins of one's distant ancestors Adam and Eve, but also those of more immediate anscestors such as parents, grandparents and great-grandparents?

But while lots of faithful people seem to accept the idea of original sin, very few I would imagine think that children are responsible for the sins or crimes of their more immediate anscestors.
 
I still can't get over two things:
  1. How could God expect his childish, amoral creations to obey him when they didn't know the difference between good and and evil until AFTER they ate of the tree of knowledge?
  2. Why pass down "original sin" onto future generations who are in no way responsible for the original act?
Of course, why are we even bothering analyzing a Bronze Age myth to begin with? Are we going to discuss the morality of Zeus' various dalliances with mortals, or the dysfunctional relationship between Osiris and Set?

Yeah, yeah, I know there are still people who believe in original sin and the Genesis story. Will this insanity ever end? If not, can anyone recommend any isolated tar paper shacks in American northwest where I can hide out while humanity slips back into the Dark Ages?
 
Last edited:
It is one of the real moral problems with the bible, one that was prominently featured in the play/movie Inherit the Wind many years ago. But it is an Old Testament rule, and as such, many Christians believe that the laws of the OT have been superseded by a "new covenant." You won't get much mileage with this unless the Christians you are talking about are fundamentalists. Most are not.
 
Tricky said:
It is one of the real moral problems with the bible, one that was prominently featured in the play/movie Inherit the Wind many years ago. But it is an Old Testament rule, and as such, many Christians believe that the laws of the OT have been superseded by a "new covenant." You won't get much mileage with this unless the Christians you are talking about are fundamentalists. Most are not.
Click to expand...

But in the same article there is this:
Original sin in the New Testament

The scriptural basis for the doctrine is found in two New Testament books by Paul the Apostle, Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22, in which he identifies Adam as the one man through whom death came into the world.[2] [13]
Click to expand...
Influence of the theology of Saint Augustine of Hippo

The Western tradition, both Catholic and Protestant, concerning original sin is largely based on writings by Augustine of Hippo. On Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was real-ly present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. For this reason, given Augustine's belief that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell, he concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell[5][6] because of original sin.
Click to expand...
Original sin in mainstream Protestantism

The notion of original sin as interpreted by Augustine of Hippo was affirmed by the Protestant Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin. Both Luther and Calvin agreed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. This inherently sinful nature (the basis for the Calvinistic doctrine of "total depravity") results in a complete alienation from God and the total inability of humans to achieve reconciliation with God based on their own abilities. Not only do individuals inherit a sinful nature due to Adam's fall, but since he was the federal head and representative of the human race, all whom he represented inherit the guilt of his sin by imputation.

John Calvin defined original sin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion as follows:
“ Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from it--such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousings--he accordingly calls "fruits of sin" (Gal 5:19-21), although they are also commonly called "sins" in Scripture, and even by Paul himself.[17] ”

The Methodist Church, founded by John Wesley, upholds Article VII in the Articles of Religion in the Book of Discipline of the Methodist Church:
“ Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.[18] ”

Because of this conundrum, Protestants believe that God the Father sent Jesus into the world. The personhood, life, ministry, suffering, and death of Jesus, as God incarnate in human flesh, is meant to be the atonement for original sin as well as actual sins; this atonement is according to some rendered fully effective by the Resurrection of Jesus.
Click to expand...
 
Puppycow said:
But in the same article there is this:
Click to expand...
Most modern Christians don't know doctrine from doodly. I know a lot of Christians and I've never heard any of them, even the more conservative of them, defend the concept of original sin. It is like Jesus saying you should give all your good away in order to follow him. If it doesn't fit with their lifestile, it is pretty much ignored.

All religions that stay popular exhibit this kind of flexibility.
 
Puppycow said:
Within this paradigm (not that I believe it, but for the sake of argument) wouldn't one then be responsible not only for the sins of one's distant ancestors Adam and Eve, but also those of more immediate anscestors such as parents, grandparents and great-grandparents?
Click to expand...
It's befuddling to realize your asking us to rationalize mythology...but...

I'd guess that the reason we're responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve alone, and not all the subsequent generations, is that it was them who permanently tainted Earth/Eden from what would have been eternal innocence. I suppose from that point the damage had been done?

But...then, technically...the flood would have erased all lineages save for Noah's. I mean, that was essentially the point, right? To start with a clean slate via (as Eddie Izzard calls it) the Etch-a-Sketch end of the world?

And then, the whole Jesus dying thing makes the issue murkier...since we can be absolved of original sin, but only through Jesus (what did the poor bastards who lived before Jesus was born have to do...dance a jig?).

My brain hurts now...thanks. :boggled:
 
Last edited:
OK, so while I think there is an inconsistency there, that's par for the course for religious dogma. Thanks everyone for your thoughts.
 
What better way to sell a product that to create a perceived need among your potential buyers?

Need: You're tainted from birth and hellbound.
Product: The blood of Jebus (for a nominal seed-offering/love-gift/poor-tax)

Religion was and will be ever so.
 
Tricky said:
Most modern Christians don't know doctrine from doodly. I know a lot of Christians and I've never heard any of them, even the more conservative of them, defend the concept of original sin. It is like Jesus saying you should give all your good away in order to follow him. If it doesn't fit with their lifestile, it is pretty much ignored.

All religions that stay popular exhibit this kind of flexibility.
Click to expand...

My memory fades from the years of Catholic indoctrination. Correct me if I am wrong but, as I recall, the purpose of baptism for Catholics at a very young age was to cleanse them of original sin. Which also brought about limbo, etc for those young who died prior to baptism.
 
The thing about the Original Sin thing that bothers me is this:

God, the perfect being, gets cheesed when Adam and Eve do their thing. Condemns humanity in retribution.
Fast forward a few thousand years....God CHANGES HIS MIND and decided to have JC "atone" for that nasty original sin...

I suppose God can be fickle if he wants, but shouldn't he have made the right decision to begin with?
 
The Nature of Sin and How It is Passed Down

I was going too far off-topic on another thread so I tryed to find one where this post seems to fit.
I came up with another of my earthshaking insights into the problem of Human nature and the original sin concept. This is something I have been thinking about a lot lately and this is my solution:
There was an actual use for the tree of knowledge of good and evil other than just being a trap.
Eating from the tree had an actual physical affect on Adam and Eve, just as eating from the tree of life would have had an actual physical affect on them.
The so-called curse on Eve was a mis-translation and all that was said was that the children she would have slowly had over eternity, she would have within a limited lifetime.
Though they were created to look like adult humans, they were psychologically immature and the affects of the fruit had a different affect on them than it would have if they had been several thousand years old. In this case they could not handle the experience and instead of so much knowledge about good and evil, they succumbed to the evil.
In another situation where their kind had begun branching off into other galaxies, and grandpa Adam would have to deal with a wayward human child, he could have been fortified with the knowledge of how to deal with the situation before it got too far out of hand.
As it was, the initiation of the event was based on a desire that was inappropriate, and the thought process was on a track based on doubt and disbelief. The fruit effects may have somehow set those bad principles irrevocably into their minds to the point that it could have eventually gone as far as activating their DNA to where their offspring would have inherited those traits.
Jesus was "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world" because God knew that there was the possibility of sin entering creation. Instead of God just destroying it and starting over, and repeating this over and over until it worked right, God had real, genuine love for the people He created and was willing to do whatever was necessary to fix it, instead of abandoning us.
 
Last edited:
Debating Wikipedia

Since I decided to put a post on this thread, I guess I should respond to something on it. Here is my response to the Wikipedia article above:
The Western tradition, both Catholic and Protestant, concerning original sin is largely based on writings by Augustine of Hippo. On Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned.
Click to expand...
This is generally close to being right but fails in the specifics. The inherent quality of being inclined to sin originates with Adam, but we are not so much just automatically guilty of sin before we actually do sin.
Original sin in mainstream Protestantism
The notion of original sin as interpreted by Augustine of Hippo was affirmed by the Protestant Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin. Both Luther and Calvin agreed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. This inherently sinful nature (the basis for the Calvinistic doctrine of "total depravity") results in a complete alienation from God and the total inability of humans to achieve reconciliation with God based on their own abilities. Not only do individuals inherit a sinful nature due to Adam's fall, but since he was the federal head and representative of the human race, all whom he represented inherit the guilt of his sin by imputation.
Click to expand...
This would be convenient if it was true because of the concept of imputed righteousness that is a hallmark of the Reformation doctrine of salvation. Jesus has a representative righteousness that is imputed to the believer, which allows him to have the judgment of God declare the person, who would otherwise be condemned, righteous. Apparently, to these greats of the Reformation, you can reverse the concept to where Adam's sin can be imputed to all of his descendants. Truths, by virtue of being true, do not somehow make them true in reverse.
John Calvin defined original sin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion as follows:
“ Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from it--such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousings--he accordingly calls "fruits of sin" (Gal 5:19-21), although they are also commonly called "sins" in Scripture, and even by Paul himself.[17] ”
Click to expand...
Calvin brings up being of a nature to be "liable to God's wrath". Paul mentions being the "children of wrath" but it is something that comes about by walking in the ways of the world ruled by Satan. Calvin says that people already have sin and the works caused by that sin being in us is the "fruits of sin". Again, Paul says "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us. . ." Not exactly something we could possibly do if we had sin in us that produces only fruits of sin. Calvin seems to redefine sin, from being a work to something inside us that produces works. Paul calls that the flesh, which is more accurate.
The Methodist Church, founded by John Wesley, upholds Article VII in the Articles of Religion in the Book of Discipline of the Methodist Church:
“ Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.[18] ”
Click to expand...
Again close to right in the general but off in the specific. There are varying degrees of personal righteousness that fail in comparison to God, perhaps. Adam showed more righteousness after he fell than he did before. He grew up to be a good and obedient follower of the ways of God.
Because of this conundrum, Protestants believe that God the Father sent Jesus into the world. The personhood, life, ministry, suffering, and death of Jesus, as God incarnate in human flesh, is meant to be the atonement for original sin as well as actual sins; this atonement is according to some rendered fully effective by the Resurrection of Jesus.
Click to expand...
How is the original sin different than an actual sin? It apparently is this magical thing that makes you guilty before you even do anything wrong. If that is what it is, then I do not believe in it. There is something that was a result of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that made people inclined to selfishness and doubt but it is not sin in itself.
 
Last edited:
Tricky said:
Most modern Christians don't know doctrine from doodly. I know a lot of Christians and I've never heard any of them, even the more conservative of them, defend the concept of original sin. It is like Jesus saying you should give all your good away in order to follow him. If it doesn't fit with their lifestile, it is pretty much ignored.
Click to expand...
This is an old post but the poster seems to be a current user on the forum. Since I revived, kind of, this thread, I suppose I could address at least one of the posts on it.
Catholics have original sin as one of the fundamental precepts in their quiver of justifications for their various rituals. A child is thought to be born with a guilt already on their head because of what Adam and Eve did. Baptism, performed by a priest saying certain words and sprinkling holy water on the head of the child magically resolves him or her of the guilt. This has a restorative affect and he or she is thought to now be a new person free of sin and can start out in a new life in the condition that Adam and Eve were in before their fall.
An interesting side effect of this restoration of sinlessness is that the subject of this miraculous process now has free will. This infant has to now deal with a world that has progressively degraded for thousands of years. He or she is, from this moment on, responsible for his or her actions. If he or she, after this really great gift, still goes ahead and takes the same course as Adam and Eve did, then this is horrible and is an indication that there is something seriously wrong with this person.
Of course I do not agree with any of this and feel that this whole system is maintained as a way of keeping the loyal membership of it dependent on it. Now they are inducted into a religion that bases salvation on the individual's works. When the works do not come out as expected, the person is unquestionably the cause of those bad works. Then he or she must come back to the priest for the forgiveness of each sin, which you admit to being responsible for.
All this bypasses the obvious, behind a screen of the mysterious. Human beings, no matter what, are not in this life going to become anything other than what they are born as. We do not get a free will handed to us. Our natures are always striving against the Spirit of God Who works within us to become better persons. We are constantly in a sinful state that results from our nature that was infected with a sin-causing disposition that goes to the very core substance of our beings.
We have been blessed, despite our not exactly being deserving of it, with Grace. We can be in a state of Grace, despite our other state we are in. This is not a condition we go in and out of, depending on if we had just committed a sin that we have not been forgiven for yet. It is a grace that is intact as long as we believe in it and have the spiritual connection with God that gives us the faith to start with.
The gift that allows for grace is the salvation in Jesus Christ which is something done outside of us and without our help and before we ever knew Jesus. He died and rose again, justified and approved by God and as proof of his acceptance, God has given him the power to send to us the Holy Spirit.
Repenting of what we have done that is spiritually negative, and caused by following the natural path in a world perverted by a long history of sinful activities, is how we come to grace. Repentance brings us to baptism, as in the Baptism of John, to signify our need of being cleansed. Now it also is the baptism into the death and resurrection of Jesus and our readiness for the baptism of the Spirit.
 
Last edited:
Ethnikos said:
Our natures are always striving against the Spirit of God Who works within us to become better persons. We are constantly in a sinful state that results from our nature that was infected with a sin-causing disposition that goes to the very core substance of our beings.
Click to expand...

Ethnikos, whether or not you accept the specifics ofthe doctrine of original sin as laid out by Augustine, your assumption that our natures are always oriented toward sin amounts to a de facto belief in it.

If we are "constantly in a sinful state that results from our nature . . ." then we must be inherantly evil, hence in need of salvation. Thus, we see that Christianity isn't compatable with an asumption of human beings as either basically good or even ethically neutral.

This, in turn, sets up a conundrum: If God is good, then his creations must also be good. Yet, humans must be evil for Christianity, or religion in general, to work. The rationalization that we can be evil because God gave us free will doesn't reallly resolve the conundrum, because, if we are basically good (as Genesis 1 says all creation was) then our free-willl choice would have been good over evil. Hence, there never would have been a fall.

Of course, as long as believers are stuck with wrestling with the internal inconsistency of the concept of human beings as basically orented toward sin while being the creations of an all-good God, they are tied up in emotional knots, focused on their own sinful nature and less likely to question the inherant absurdity of the doctrine, thus less likely to overthrow the power structure it helps maintain. Once we accept that we are basically a fairly decent, yet imperfect, lot and the product of evolution, we can dump all this crazy-making baggage.
 
Yes. What Tim says.
One must accept the inconsistencies of Original Sin and its consequences and the Redemption which relieved none of those consequences, and carry the burden of sinful humanity as a given.
Some people are no damn good, but not all of them.
As Xtianity has never been known to most of the people who have lived and died, and will remain unknown to most of the people who will live, as a "universal message" of "salvation", it purely sucks!
 
Original sin is not a sin as such it is more of a curse. God created Adam and Eve from the word and in perfection, after the fall all people were created from the flesh as opposed to from the word, because of this we are born with a sinful nature and must look to God for guidance to live a life without sin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom