Original Sin

[Dan Mellis]

What are your views on original sin? This is both for hard-line literalists and those who believe it's all metaphorical

For the believers in the literal interpretation: I assume you reject evolution - otherwise the Adam and Eve story can't really be a thing. Who's to say when the first 'humans' walked the earth, considering we all have varying amounts of neanderthal DNA still floating around.

For the metaphorical believers: unless Adam and eve literally gave us original sin, jesus' martyrdom was pointless. If you believe Jesus was a mythical character, how can you assume God is different?

Thanks for indulging me

 

[Eddi]

I don't believe in Adam and Eve literally

But I do believe people are born with negative karmic credit

No, I don't like the sound of that

But not liking it doesn't make it any less true!

 

[Dan Mellis]

I don't believe in Adam and Eve literally

But I do believe people are born with negative karmic credit

No, I don't like the sound of that

But not liking it doesn't make it any less true!

Why though? How does that follow?

If you dislike the way something sounds but still believe it, surely you have evidence that has persuaded you to come to that belief?

 

[Kenny]

What are your views on original sin? This is both for hard-line literalists and those who believe it's all metaphorical

For the believers in the literal interpretation: I assume you reject evolution - otherwise the Adam and Eve story can't really be a thing. Who's to say when the first 'humans' walked the earth, considering we all have varying amounts of neanderthal DNA still floating around.

For the metaphorical believers: unless Adam and eve literally gave us original sin, jesus' martyrdom was pointless. If you believe Jesus was a mythical character, how can you assume God is different?

Thanks for indulging me

Thank you for asking

It really depends on how you define it since different people will have different perspectives.

You can believe in evolution as a whole and still believe Adam and Eve were created. It doesn't say how animals were created. There are many theories as the Bible isn't specific on that issue such as a pre-Adamic world which would account for "other beings".

Do we believe that Adam and Eve were the "original sinners"? Yes. And certainly we never have to teach our children to do wrong, they learn all by themselves.

So what exactly is your question on original sin?

 

[sooda]

What are your views on original sin? This is both for hard-line literalists and those who believe it's all metaphorical

For the believers in the literal interpretation: I assume you reject evolution - otherwise the Adam and Eve story can't really be a thing. Who's to say when the first 'humans' walked the earth, considering we all have varying amounts of neanderthal DNA still floating around.

For the metaphorical believers: unless Adam and eve literally gave us original sin, jesus' martyrdom was pointless. If you believe Jesus was a mythical character, how can you assume God is different?

Thanks for indulging me

Original sin makes no sense at all.. Look how often the scripture contradicts whether children inherit the sins of the father.

Its a pretty convoluted dogma. Jews and Muslims don't believe in inherited sin.

 

[Stevicus]

Original sin makes no sense at all.. Look how often the scripture contradicts whether children inherit the sins of the father.

Its a pretty convoluted dogma. Jews and Muslims don't believe in inherited sin.

I always took it as another way of saying that "the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree." It's relatively common for children to walk in the footsteps of their parents, even in sin. But I don't believe it's something they're born with (unless they were born with some kind of brain damage or other anomalies).

 

[Brickjectivity]

Rough explanation of what original sin is supposed to mean:
Israel is formed, and this divides the world into that which is formed (Israel) and that which previously exists (the nations). Those who follow the Torah are in the new creation, while those who do not are part of the old pre-existing world. Those who follow Torah are like the kosher creatures which prefer the day to the night. They prefer flowing water and heights to mud and still water. These are symbols found in Torah and Genesis. Those in the new creation aren't war loving savages but shepherds, singers and lovers. Thus the original sin is to be a part of the previous creation, to love war, to oppress, to be without law. Fast forward to Jesus and then to Paul, and original sin is gone, since Jesus death atones for all the world. The entire world is atoned for as there is a new creation. At least to those in Christ that is the true world but to those who are not in Christ the world continues to seem fallen and of the old creation.

 

[sooda]

I always took it as another way of saying that "the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree." It's relatively common for children to walk in the footsteps of their parents, even in sin. But I don't believe it's something they're born with (unless they were born with some kind of brain damage or other anomalies).

So someone should be punished because their GGGrandfather was a horse thief?

 

[Stevicus]

So someone should be punished because their GGGrandfather was a horse thief?

No, I would never agree to that.

 

[shmogie]

What are your views on original sin? This is both for hard-line literalists and those who believe it's all metaphorical

For the believers in the literal interpretation: I assume you reject evolution - otherwise the Adam and Eve story can't really be a thing. Who's to say when the first 'humans' walked the earth, considering we all have varying amounts of neanderthal DNA still floating around.

For the metaphorical believers: unless Adam and eve literally gave us original sin, jesus' martyrdom was pointless. If you believe Jesus was a mythical character, how can you assume God is different?

Thanks for indulging me [/QU
What does the theological concept of original sin have to do with the scientific theory of evolution ?

Original sin simply means that we are born with a nature that is out of harmony with God.

 

[Eddi]

Why though? How does that follow?

If you dislike the way something sounds but still believe it, surely you have evidence that has persuaded you to come to that belief?

From a Christian perspective:

Because I believe in humankind's fallen nature; that we all need saving from sin (but also that we can all be saved from sin too)

What does it mean to be fallen? I'd say that in practical terms it would mean having negative karmic credit

IMO This deficit can be cancelled out by the simple act of infant baptism. If at a later stage as an adult you chose to accept Christ's sacrifice then the prospect of producing an abundance of karma for yourself becomes a reality. Yes, you can build up good karma without being a Christian, but all you will produce is worldly karma, rather than heavenly karma.

I know "karma" is not a Christian concept, but I find that it is quite useful. I don't believe Christianity has a monopoly on wisdom!

 

[Thief]

Adam and Eve story can't really be a thing.

scripture (new testament)
Adam is a CHOSEN son of God

That could happen

Eve is a clone

That could happen

 

[shmogie]

I always took it as another way of saying that "the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree." It's relatively common for children to walk in the footsteps of their parents, even in sin. But I don't believe it's something they're born with (unless they were born with some kind of brain damage or other anomalies).

If one looks at a parent who abuses children, we find that most likely that parent was abused as a child.

It becomes a family chain of bad behavior.

We learn parenting from our own parents. They may not be abusers, but they could be indulgent, lack discipline, etc., etc. Again, part of the chain.

Original sin is simply our inherent propensity to sin. It is part of our nature. A four year old lies instead of telling the truth, it is a natural response. If there was not so called original sin, it would be natural for that child to always tell the truth.

Accountability is a different issue, the lying 4 year old is not accountable for lying, yet it is an example of our inherent natures,

 

[Thief]

I note the Spanish application.....sin
to mean
without

and someone had to be first to live without God
in sin

prior to the garden event Man lived without God
but a s a species
and in ignorance of spirit

primates do that snatch and grab.....runaway
primates do that harm unto others.....the self as primary

Adam and Eve for cause of the garden event
were the first to be aware
sin

living without God

 

[sun rise]

To me "original sin" is almost meaningless from an Eastern perspective. The soul evolves through many forms finally reaching full development when it inhabits a human body.

If "original sin" has any meaning, it's the left over impressions from animal lives which manifest as low desires. But this can and is overcome during human reincarnation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Original sin is simply our inherent propensity to sin.

If sin doesn't mean the state of being spiritually sick due to the disobedience of the first two human beings requiring salvation through the blood of Christ to avoid perdition and destruction, and instead earn eternal heaven, then Christianity's central tenets fall away, and there is no reason to be a Christian or to petition the Christian god.

I think the point of the OP is that if the Genesis account isn't taken literally as just described, none of the rest of the religion has any meaning. The OP asks Christians who don't take the scriptures literally why the concept of original sin should be believed literally if the idea of two original human beings literally defying a specific god didn't create a condition requiring literal intervention of a specific nature - belief in and obedience to a specific god.

It's not mentioned in the OP, but if one accepts the scientific theory of evolution over literal creation of the kinds including man as described in Genesis, then man was not created in any image, and there is no reason to think that any organisms have souls.

 

[Nakosis]

What are your views on original sin? This is both for hard-line literalists and those who believe it's all metaphorical

For the believers in the literal interpretation: I assume you reject evolution - otherwise the Adam and Eve story can't really be a thing. Who's to say when the first 'humans' walked the earth, considering we all have varying amounts of neanderthal DNA still floating around.

For the metaphorical believers: unless Adam and eve literally gave us original sin, jesus' martyrdom was pointless. If you believe Jesus was a mythical character, how can you assume God is different?

Thanks for indulging me

I'd suppose the Hebrews used it to explain why life sucked. Why life was a struggle. A "good" loving God would not subject the creation he loved to this crappy world. So we must have done something bad to deserve this crappy situation we fined ourselves in.

God, a loving God would have created Eden, the perfect place for us to live. Instead we find ourselves living in this craphole.

Original sin, man disobeyed God, is a story to explain why we live in a craphole.

 

[Earthtank]

The concept of the original sin directly contradicts the god of the bible, which is 1 of the main reasons i reject Christianity

 

[sooda]

To me "original sin" is almost meaningless from an Eastern perspective. The soul evolves through many forms finally reaching full development when it inhabits a human body.

If "original sin" has any meaning, it's the left over impressions from animal lives which manifest as low desires. But this can and is overcome during human reincarnation.

In Christianity Adam and Eve sinned because they were beguiled by the snake and disobeyed God. Therefore all human children forever are born with that inherited sin.

 

[sooda]

The concept of the original sin directly contradicts the god of the bible, which is 1 of the main reasons i reject Christianity

Actually original sin does contradict the God of the Bible, but it was necessary to explain the importance of the crucifixion and the "sacrifice" of Jesus. Original sin wasn't doctrine until the 3rd century AD.