Original Sin

[Barcode]

Christians: Are all humans born sinners? Or is this the belief of a few?

 

[sojourner]

Christians: Are all humans born sinners? Or is this the belief of a few?

I don't think I'd put it that way...:sarcastic

 

[doppelganger]

Christians: Are all humans born sinners? Or is this the belief of a few?

Depends on what you mean by sin. As discussed in this thread, when your mirror neurons start doing their thing and you develop a sense of yourself (which is a necessary part of abstract language usage, BTW) then you become "separate" from "God" and the "Garden" becomes an inhospitable place that must be organized, judged and managed for your own survival or benefit. Perhaps this is what the author of the story means by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil bringing death. After all, one must have a concrete sense of self to anticipate and mull over the end of one's being.

So if you use the verb form "I am" then you are, at least to some tangible, grammatical (i.e. "real") extent, separate from "God."

 

[Barcode]

Depends on what you mean by sin. As discussed in this thread, when your mirror neurons start doing their thing and you develop a sense of yourself (which is a necessary part of abstract language usage, BTW) then you become "separate" from "God" and the "Garden" becomes an inhospitable place that must be organized, judged and managed for your own survival or benefit. Perhaps this is what the author of the story means by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil bringing death. After all, one must have a concrete sense of self to anticipate and mull over the end of one's being.

So if you use the verb form "I am" then you are, at least to some tangible, grammatical (i.e. "real") extent, separate from "God."

I think using neurological terms is too much of a complex way of explaining how we are born with sin. Allow me to myself clearer:

Are all human children on this planet born as transgressors of God as the OP would imply?

To me, it seems the Christian point-of-view is apparent and assumes this naturalistic theology that man's nature is simply transgression. I have so far read a variety of opinions that has lead me to think we all transgressed against God even though as babies or adolescents, we cannot conceive of sin anyway.

 

[Katzpur]

Christians: Are all humans born sinners? Or is this the belief of a few?

I think it would be safe to say that it is the belief of the majority, but not of all. I'm Christian, and I don't believe for a minute that a newborn baby is a sinner. To be fair to the other side, though, most of them would say that they are born into a sinful state, but not as "sinners" per se. I just don't know how one can be in a sinful state and not be a sinner. In other words, they'll tell you that because Adam sinned, we have all inherited that sin and must be redeemed because of it. I'd tell you that the only sins we will be held accountable for are our own.

 

[thedope]

Ish and ishah are the Hebrew words found there for "Male" and "female." Therefore, it's not proper exegesis to say that, in creation symbolism, we're not talking about man and woman -- because we clearly are.

Let me get this straight. I have two passages, one is written male and female, the other is written man and woman. If the hebrew words are male and female then they are not man and woman, they are male and female. There is a difference. God doesn't make a female from the rib of a man, he makes a woman. You haven't cleared anything up but are simply mesmerized by an orthodox view. If the words are the same between the two passages, why are they not the same. There is male and female creative principle in every man and woman. Every man has both male and female creative principle and every woman has both male and female creative principle.
You do not understand, there are no marriages in heaven.

Just because you have done it, does not mean that you have done it properly and that it will hold up under close scrutiny. I could teach a class, but if I don't teach the class within the parameters of the accepted teaching standards, then my teaching has come to nothing. Since your interpretation does not take advantage of a proper exegesis, it may be an entertaining exercise, but it ultimately doesn't amount to much.

Which close scrutiny is that. Is that the one where you compare what you believe against what is said. Have any debates ended in this world? I don't speak hebrew.
The words man and woman are out of context within the statement, so god created man in his own image, in the image of god he created him, male and female he created them.
This is not a matter of translation but of interpretation.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

The original sin had to be vanity.
If you are Christian, than the Adversary became jealous. But to be jealous, you must first have vanity.
For others, Eve became tempted to eat the forbidden fruit.
To be tempted, you must have vanity.

I believe sin to be as a plague. One small drop turns everything upside down. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they became ashamed and realized they were naked. Like a domino effect, shame became fear, fear became anger, and so on. They gained the knowledge of good and evil.
In other words, I don't believe there was anything magical about the tree at all. It was simply disobeying God.

It's also important to note that to sin is not to commit an 'evil act', but rather to 'miss the point'. Sin leads to evil in the scheme of things if they are not exacted or repented.

Anyways, vanity-
that's my theory.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Even though we are human and God is Divine? Wasn't that the reason for the Incarnation? God becoming one of us in order to reconcile us to God's Self?

Genesis tells us that we are made in God's image -- not that we are made God. I think that explicitly outlines an understanding of a fundamental difference between us. It's a difference that caused us to have that knowledge of good and evil that caused us to further separate, no?

This is where my disconnect with you comes from.
I do not believe the Genesis stories were ever thought as true events, but like all fabulous writings do contain useful lessons. However the details were never intended to be used a facts in an argument.
For a similar reason I do not believe there can be a connection between the incarnation and original sin ( I do not believe original sin exists, which was never, nor is, believed by the Jewish faith.)

Whilst God is wholly Divine, we do contain his spark with in our souls. It is this that makes life sacred.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I think it would be safe to say that it is the belief of the majority, but not of all. I'm Christian, and I don't believe for a minute that a newborn baby is a sinner. To be fair to the other side, though, most of them would say that they are born into a sinful state, but not as "sinners" per se. I just don't know how one can be in a sinful state and not be a sinner. In other words, they'll tell you that because Adam sinned, we have all inherited that sin and must be redeemed because of it. I'd tell you that the only sins we will be held accountable for are our own.

The connection between Jesus, Redemption and original sin, would seem to be built on a false premises.
Jesus as a Jew did not believe in the concept of original sin.
As a concept it did not exist until much later in Christian development.

It would seem this would throw the existing concept of redemption into question.

As we approach Easter, this is a very appropriate question to be thinking about.

It is Clear that Jesus knew he must die. The question is was this an example to us, of ultimate self sacrifice for others in obedience to God, or a more mystical reason. Such as redemption for original sin.

 

[doppelganger]

I think using neurological terms is too much of a complex way of explaining how we are born with sin. Allow me to myself clearer:

Are all human children on this planet born as transgressors of God as the OP would imply?

No. The way I understand it, the OP has nothing to do with supernatural entities or the "God" of modern "theism." It has to do with the psychological and philosophical import of the myth.

 

[doppelganger]

The connection between Jesus, Redemption and original sin, would seem to be built on a false premises.
Jesus as a Jew did not believe in the concept of original sin.
As a concept it did not exist until much later in Christian development.
.

Unless of course you conceive of "original sin" as Laurie did in the OP rather than the RC doctrine. Then Jesus, by grasping his being both fully human and fully divine, demonstrates the path back into the Garden and to at-one-ment with "God." We don't magically go there automatically because he did. We go there by finding the mystery of Christ (love, uncertainty, faith) within.

No superstitious thinking is involved once you enter the myth rather than read it as though it were an item of history.

 

[sojourner]

I think using neurological terms is too much of a complex way of explaining how we are born with sin. Allow me to myself clearer:

Are all human children on this planet born as transgressors of God as the OP would imply?

To me, it seems the Christian point-of-view is apparent and assumes this naturalistic theology that man's nature is simply transgression. I have so far read a variety of opinions that has lead me to think we all transgressed against God even though as babies or adolescents, we cannot conceive of sin anyway.

"Transgressor" is too harsh a term. "Different" is a better term.

 

[sojourner]

Let me get this straight. I have two passages, one is written male and female, the other is written man and woman. If the hebrew words are male and female then they are not man and woman, they are male and female. There is a difference. God doesn't make a female from the rib of a man, he makes a woman. You haven't cleared anything up but are simply mesmerized by an orthodox view. If the words are the same between the two passages, why are they not the same. There is male and female creative principle in every man and woman. Every man has both male and female creative principle and every woman has both male and female creative principle.
You do not understand, there are no marriages in heaven.


Which close scrutiny is that. Is that the one where you compare what you believe against what is said. Have any debates ended in this world? I don't speak hebrew.
The words man and woman are out of context within the statement, so god created man in his own image, in the image of god he created him, male and female he created them.
This is not a matter of translation but of interpretation.

You're taking two completely different stories of creation, written by two different authors and glomming them together. It doesn't work that way. Since the rib story is found in the chapter 2 version, that's the one to which I was referring. Ish and ishah are found in the chapter 2 version. They do mean "man" and "woman." Now: Which version do you want to work with here? Chapter 1 or chapter 2?

 

[sojourner]

This is where my disconnect with you comes from.
I do not believe the Genesis stories were ever thought as true events, but like all fabulous writings do contain useful lessons. However the details were never intended to be used a facts in an argument.
For a similar reason I do not believe there can be a connection between the incarnation and original sin ( I do not believe original sin exists, which was never, nor is, believed by the Jewish faith.)

Whilst God is wholly Divine, we do contain his spark with in our souls. It is this that makes life sacred.

True, they were not. But they were meant as an explanation of why things are the way they are. As such, the metaphorical images do point to how we understand ourselves in relationship to God. And the stories do point out that there is a difference between humanity and Divinity. It's a difference that is made all the clearer in at least two places: The first, when Eve is tempted to blur that distinction by becoming "like God." The second, when the people on the plain of Shinar tried to build a tower to heaven "to make a name for themselves." The texts do make clear that there is a clear distinction.

A prevailing solid theological construct holds that it was the Incarnation and not the crucifixion that effected reconciliation. I think that's borne out in Isaiah, when he prophesies about Emmanuel -- "God With Us." The Incarnation provides the bridge between the inherent differences. Wisdom does not bridge the gap. Works do not bridge the gap. Only God's act of becoming one of us bridges the gap of "sin" (separateness) and brings reconciliation.

I think what's happening here is that "sin" is such a loaded term. I'm using it as nomenclature for the inherent difference between humanity and Divinity -- one that we can never fix. It is in that sense that "original sin" exists (IMO) -- not in the "standard Roman doctrine" sense. In the first case, yes the Jews do believe in an inherent difference -- or Genesis wouldn't have been written the way it was. Does that help to clear things up?

 

[sojourner]

Unless of course you conceive of "original sin" as Laurie did in the OP rather than the RC doctrine. Then Jesus, by grasping his being both fully human and fully divine, demonstrates the path back into the Garden and to at-one-ment with "God." We don't magically go there automatically because he did. We go there by finding the mystery of Christ (love, uncertainty, faith) within.

No superstitious thinking is involved once you enter the myth rather than read it as though it were an item of history.

Indeed!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Unless of course you conceive of "original sin" as Laurie did in the OP rather than the RC doctrine. Then Jesus, by grasping his being both fully human and fully divine, demonstrates the path back into the Garden and to at-one-ment with "God." We don't magically go there automatically because he did. We go there by finding the mystery of Christ (love, uncertainty, faith) within.

No superstitious thinking is involved once you enter the myth rather than read it as though it were an item of history.

Why should any one enter a myth.?

As far as Jesus being Fully Divine and fully man goes. I see no evidence that that is from Jesus mouth, but from later Christian debate and agreement.

It may be true from a trinitarian view, but that is not the only Christian view.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

=sojourner;2420402]True, they were not. But they were meant as an explanation of why things are the way they are. As such, the metaphorical images do point to how we understand ourselves in relationship to God. And the stories do point out that there is a difference between humanity and Divinity. It's a difference that is made all the clearer in at least two places: The first, when Eve is tempted to blur that distinction by becoming "like God." The second, when the people on the plain of Shinar tried to build a tower to heaven "to make a name for themselves." The texts do make clear that there is a clear distinction.

Eating from the Tree of Knowledge can be read and interpreted many ways... I have heard it used to attack modern science and our search for modern knowledge.
Like all Jewish scripture, it can be interpreted many ways, but "prove" very little.

I am not sure that there is an absolute difference between the nature of God and men... when we Die we return to God, at that point our substance must be of the same order, Just as it was before we were born.

A prevailing solid theological construct holds that it was the Incarnation and not the crucifixion that effected reconciliation. I think that's borne out in Isaiah, when he prophesies about Emmanuel -- "God With Us." The Incarnation provides the bridge between the inherent differences. Wisdom does not bridge the gap. Works do not bridge the gap. Only God's act of becoming one of us bridges the gap of "sin" (separateness) and brings reconciliation.

I do not believe there ever is a Gap between ourselves and God ... God our souls and the Holy Spirit are permantly linked. This is true of all of us not Just Christians.

I think what's happening here is that "sin" is such a loaded term. I'm using it as nomenclature for the inherent difference between humanity and Divinity -- one that we can never fix. It is in that sense that "original sin" exists (IMO) -- not in the "standard Roman doctrine" sense. In the first case, yes the Jews do believe in an inherent difference -- or Genesis wouldn't have been written the way it was. Does that help to clear things up?

The Jews do see God as different to them selves and it has nothing to do with original sin. They have many concepts quite different to Christians, none of these match or support Christian doctrines.

We substitute our beliefs on to their scripture in a very unhealthy way.

 

[James Humphreys]

The connection between Jesus, Redemption and original sin, would seem to be built on a false premises.
Jesus as a Jew did not believe in the concept of original sin.
As a concept it did not exist until much later in Christian development.

It would seem this would throw the existing concept of redemption into question.

As we approach Easter, this is a very appropriate question to be thinking about.

It is Clear that Jesus knew he must die. The question is was this an example to us, of ultimate self sacrifice for others in obedience to God, or a more mystical reason. Such as redemption for original sin.

Jesus is reported by John's gospel to have said "You are of your father the devil and your will is to do his desires." He responded this way to the Pharisees claim that they were descendants of Abraham, by implying that their connection to Satan was a stronger more basic one. I think this is pretty close to the traditional understanding of original sin, although he did not use that wording (that we have recorded).

I think Judaism of Jesus' time had a lot of diversity. And while it may not have been predominate, I think Jesus' views about some inherent tendency to sin probably was shared by at least some others.

 

[thedope]

You're taking two completely different stories of creation, written by two different authors and glomming them together. It doesn't work that way. Since the rib story is found in the chapter 2 version, that's the one to which I was referring. Ish and ishah are found in the chapter 2 version. They do mean "man" and "woman." Now: Which version do you want to work with here? Chapter 1 or chapter 2?

You have said nothing different from what I have said, save for you think that I am mixing the two stories. I am attempting to point out that they are not complimentary stories in the way many interpret it. Popular interpretation being, the second story fleshes out the first story. In fact the story in chapter 2 is older than the story in chapter 1. Mainstream interpretation suggests the stories, as I say are complementary. However if you lay them both in relation to each other, the fundamental premise of each is different. The properties of the world are different in the two stories.

I agree with you that chapter two states man and woman. Chapter one states male and female. This is not different from what I pointed out originally. So now I hope we are satisfied that I am not from the outset, "doing it wrong", and we can discuss the substance of what was said.

Chapter ones version of creation is an energetic depiction. There is no personality or the altering of substances in chapter one, everything is perfectly tuned at the outset. The chapter two version is full of conflicting personality and antipathy, discontent.
it is a homo-centric description, where god takes on the inconsistent qualities of men.

These are two diametrically opposed descriptions of the same thing. The first chapter description I would call the heavenly perception and chapter two the worldly perception. Heaven and earth are diametrically opposed perceptions of the same phenomena. What is loosed on earth is also loosed in heaven. Heaven and earth shall pass away, meaning they will cease to exist as separate states.

Original sin is the miscreant use of mind where the children of god imagine themselves, unlike their creator. It is a problem of perception, an authority problem.

The teaching of christ corrects perception to the point where god takes the final step. Kind of a strange statement and it needs an analogy. When you tune into a radio station, you can either turn the dial to a desired frequency represented by the numbers on the dial, Or You can sweep the dial across the bandwidth and tune in according to what you hear. In either event as you approach the exact location of the signal, static diminishes and once you hit that sweet spot it gets kind of locked in to where the clear signal occupies more play in the dial than appeared before you locked on to the signal. You no longer have to adjust the dial to hear the station.

All this talk about perception is directly related to original sin and the undoing of it.
Jesus taught that we didn't see the world as it was.
To what shall I compare this generation. It is like children sitting in the market place and calling to their playmates, we piped to you and you did not dance, we wailed and you did not mourn. For john came eating and drinking and they say he has a demon, etc.

I apologize for the length of this post.

 

[doppelganger]

Why should any one enter a myth.?

Because that's what myths are for?

As far as Jesus being Fully Divine and fully man goes.

I see no evidence that that is from Jesus mouth, but from later Christian debate and agreement.[/quote]

Why was he killed by the Sanhedrin in the story?

Do you think I'm using "God" or "divine" to mean anything even remotely like what mainstream Christian theology means by those terms?