No Adam = no Original Sin - right?

[pray4me]

Any child capable of forming speech lies. If you don't believe this it's because you have very little experience with real children. And whether they misrepresent the truth in order to keep from getting out of trouble or to advance their toddler sense of self-interest, it's still lying, and it's a product of their sinful natures, inherited from Adam. If they didn't have a sinful nature, they would never lie. And they wouldn't be influenced to be able to lie.

I agree that the same child who has a propensity for evil has a propensity for good. But in the end, the propensity for evil will color almost all efforts to do what is good. And this problem is inherent in the child. It's imparted "genetically" from the parents, it's not learned. That said, our sinful natures express themselves to greater and lesser degrees in different persons. So we can see that some children retain a sweetness that others lose quite quickly. But even the sweetest child exhibits tendencies to self-promotion, selfishness, dissimulation, and so forth. This tendency to behave this way is a product of sin that inheres in the child. It may be exacerbated or disciplined by the parents, but it's there nonetheless.

Sorry if this contradicts a more romantic view of reality, but I can think of no Christian doctrine that is better attested to by universal experience than that of original sin.

Actually I've had quite a bit of experience with REAL children. My 6 younger brothers and sisters, my two neices and my own two daughters. Not to mention their friends. We as adults lie more often than we know or even think about. You don't think that children pick up on this? You tell a child getting her shots that it isn't going to hurt that much but it does. She sees that it's okay to say something untrue. Children learn from everything they see and hear.

I heard a story once about an ape who lied. She was one of those that had been taught sign language. She had broken something by sitting on it but when asked she said her trainer had done it, what she didn't realize was that her trainer was much too small to have broken it. Now since an ape isn't a decendent of adam and thus could not have inherited original sin, how do you explain this? I stand by the assertation that original sin is the knowledge of sin and it is that knowledge that is passed from generation to generation, not something in the genetic structure.

 

[Katzpur]

The doctrine of original sin (despite what some overenthusiastic proponents of it say) does not say that people are born evil. It says that we are born with a propensity for evil. You don't have to teach children to be selfish, lie, or hurt others. Quite the contrary. You have to teach them to share, to be considerate, to be generous.

I agree with you up to this point.

So whatever "innocence" children have in their eyes, it's seriously defaced by their first birthday.

I don't understand how you can equate the actions of even a very young child as sinful. How can someone sin when they are incapable of understanding the difference between right and wrong? You can't possibly think a year-old child has the ability to make a decision of this sort.

 

[Comprehend]

I agree with you up to this point.

I don't understand how you can equate the actions of even a very young child as sinful. How can someone sin when they are incapable of understanding the difference between right and wrong? You can't possibly think a year-old child has the ability to make a decision of this sort.

You are asking that question of a person who believes that Adam sinned BEFORE he ate of the tree of Knowledge? :angel2:

 

[hoodedhess]

The ORIGINAL sin had nothing to do with Adam in the first place. The original sin was Lucifer's pride and jealousy thus him getting kicked out of heaven.

 

[Dunemeister]

I don't understand how you can equate the actions of even a very young child as sinful. How can someone sin when they are incapable of understanding the difference between right and wrong? You can't possibly think a year-old child has the ability to make a decision of this sort.

An act isn't sinful because you have a full understanding of morality. Who does? Rather, an act is sinful if it's motivated by our sinful or selfish natures rather than by the Spirit of God. I've seen one and two year old children fight and scream and belittle each other. And these children had been raised in stable, loving homes. They couldn't possibly have learned these behaviors from their parents or from TV because the parents were lovely and there was no TV. So whence the nastiness? It came from within them. And it was sinful.

 

[Dunemeister]

I stand by the assertation that original sin is the knowledge of sin and it is that knowledge that is passed from generation to generation, not something in the genetic structure.

That's an interesting point of view, and it bears examining. However, I think that Paul adequately described our situation as being "in sin." That is, we are entangled in a web of sin that has us in its grip from the time we take our first breath. We are born in a condition of sin. This doesn't mean necessarily that we are blameworthy for every action taken, especially in the earliest days of our existence. However, our sinfulness comes out through displays of selfishness. Again, you do not have to teach a child to lie or be greedy. Even the most loving homes will have children who are selfish and who lie at an extremely early age, well before they can pick up these things from their parents.

That said, sinful natures manifest in different degrees in different people. There are comparatively nasty and sweet children. But all are tainted with sin.

And about that ape, I don't know what to say. All I know is that all of creation has been subjected to futility (or sin) because of Adam's transgression. So I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that apes were sinful in a way similar to humans. Certainly they are a part of a fallen created order, so why not?

 

[hoodedhess]

Nice insight Dunemeister !

 

[logician]

That's an interesting point of view, and it bears examining. However, I think that Paul adequately described our situation as being "in sin." That is, we are entangled in a web of sin that has us in its grip from the time we take our first breath. We are born in a condition of sin. This doesn't mean necessarily that we are blameworthy for every action taken, especially in the earliest days of our existence. However, our sinfulness comes out through displays of selfishness. Again, you do not have to teach a child to lie or be greedy. Even the most loving homes will have children who are selfish and who lie at an extremely early age, well before they can pick up these things from their parents.

That said, sinful natures manifest in different degrees in different people. There are comparatively nasty and sweet children. But all are tainted with sin.

And about that ape, I don't know what to say. All I know is that all of creation has been subjected to futility (or sin) because of Adam's transgression. So I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that apes were sinful in a way similar to humans. Certainly they are a part of a fallen created order, so why not?

It seems Christians are quite humg up on the concept of sin, and the guilt associated therewith. Why is this so?

 

[pray4me]

sin is the same thing as wrongdoing. Do you believe that there are certain things (like murder) which are unacceptable or wrong? Then you too believe in sin.

to dunemeister: Again I will have to disagree with you, there is no age too young to have learned something from your parents. Children learn words from listening to their parents talk and at that age they are sponges. Even a parent with the best intentions will make mistakes. It is impossible for a parent to show a perfect example to their children when they are not perfect themselves thus continuing the cycle. What part of the NT are you refering to when Paul said we are "in sin"? I don't recall that exact phrasing please put chapter and verse so I can look it up.

 

[logician]

sin is the same thing as wrongdoing. Do you believe that there are certain things (like murder) which are unacceptable or wrong? Then you too believe in sin.

to dunemeister: Again I will have to disagree with you, there is no age too young to have learned something from your parents. Children learn words from listening to their parents talk and at that age they are sponges. Even a parent with the best intentions will make mistakes. It is impossible for a parent to show a perfect example to their children when they are not perfect themselves thus continuing the cycle. What part of the NT are you refering to when Paul said we are "in sin"? I don't recall that exact phrasing please put chapter and verse so I can look it up.

I'm not saying there is not the concept of morality, I'm saying Christians are overly hung-up on the concept of sin.

 

[pray4me]

you must mean the second definition of sin in Mirriam Websters dictionary. I think the reason would be clear. Christians believe in God so they do not wish to transgress against him.

Sin (Definition taken from Miriam-Webster.com)
1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c: an often serious shortcoming : fault
2 a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

 

[Dunemeister]

sin is the same thing as wrongdoing. Do you believe that there are certain things (like murder) which are unacceptable or wrong? Then you too believe in sin.

to dunemeister: Again I will have to disagree with you, there is no age too young to have learned something from your parents. Children learn words from listening to their parents talk and at that age they are sponges. Even a parent with the best intentions will make mistakes. It is impossible for a parent to show a perfect example to their children when they are not perfect themselves thus continuing the cycle. What part of the NT are you refering to when Paul said we are "in sin"? I don't recall that exact phrasing please put chapter and verse so I can look it up.

Read Romans and Ephesians. Lots of it there.

 

[Dunemeister]

you must mean the second definition of sin in Mirriam Websters dictionary. I think the reason would be clear. Christians believe in God so they do not wish to transgress against him.

Sin (Definition taken from Miriam-Webster.com)
1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c: an often serious shortcoming : fault
2 a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

Perhaps a theological dictionary would be best. The word "sin" can express a condition, not just an act as implied by Miriam Webster.

 

[Dunemeister]

It seems Christians are quite humg up on the concept of sin, and the guilt associated therewith. Why is this so?

It simply came up in the context of this debate. But in general, Christians are concerned about sin because it is that from which Christ saves us.

 

[emiliano]

I like Saint Augustine&#8217;s take on this &#8220;sin is a corrupted good&#8221; Adam as the whole of the creation was create Good just as God declared on the sixth day, there is nothing original in Adam&#8217;s sin, it performed long before that by a spirit and is disobedience.

 

[crystalonyx]

I like Saint Augustine’s take on this “sin is a corrupted good” Adam as the whole of the creation was create Good just as God declared on the sixth day, there is nothing original in Adam’s sin, it performed long before that by a spirit and is disobedience.

Say what?

 

[emiliano]

Say what?

You don’t get! We Christians believe that God is the Alpha and the Omega and that God is supremely good, so as the creation came from God and it must be part of Him, as we believe that before Him there was nothing, on the originality of Adam’s sin, what I say that it isn’t original at all, it just a copy of the devil’s sin that it is disobedience, pride and wanting to be God.

 

[Dunemeister]

You don’t get! We Christians believe that God is the Alpha and the Omega and that God is supremely good, so as the creation came from God and it must be part of Him, as we believe that before Him there was nothing, on the originality of Adam’s sin, what I say that it isn’t original at all, it just a copy of the devil’s sin that it is disobedience, pride and wanting to be God.

Christians don't hold that creation is part of God. That's panentheism. Christians hold that creation is utterly separate from God, although God permeates all of it.

Whether Adam "copied" the devil's sin or not, it's still correct to call it "original sin." The term "original sin" means only that human sins has their origin in human nature, which is sinful or prone to sin.

This concept stands whether Adam was a literal person or not.

 

[uss_bigd]

Now that it's widely accepted that the story of Adam is not a literal representation of reality, the concept of original sin falls apart, it would seem.

The Original sin is a human made doctrine designed to make money for the creators ofthe doctrine.

ask how

 

[doppelganger]

The Original sin is a human made doctrine designed to make money for the creators ofthe doctrine.

ask how