What was the first sin ever committed ?

[Brian2]

But Satan, like Jesus, can do nothing without the Father. See the book of Job.

Satan is an angel who has fallen. I would say that Satan went as close to the edge as possible, and eventually his true colours were plain to everyone.
The demons obeyed Jesus because Jesus had authority over them, as he has over satan, but I would say they obey what they obey, out of fear.

 

[ajay0]

There seems to be a lot of varying answers on this so I was curious what people here think it would be.

All vices like lust, greed, hatred leading to corresponding crimes are but fundamentally strong desires in the form of cravings and aversions.

These likes and dislikes for sensory pleasure and pain become stronger when one continually contemplates on them leading to stronger desires in the form of cravings and aversions that can sequence to vices and crimes.

Jiddu Krishnamurti in his book 'Freedom from the Known' elaborates on this psychological process...

https://ia800301.us.archive.org/6/items/FreedomFromTheKnownJ.Krishnamurti/Freedom%20From%20The%20Known%20-%20J.%20Krishnamurti.pdf

Pleasure comes into being through four stages - perception, sensation, contact and desire. I see a beautiful motor car, say; then I get a sensation, a reaction, from looking at it; then I touch it or imagine touching it, and then there is the desire to own and show myself off in it. Or I see a lovely cloud, or a mountain clear against the sky, or a leaf that has just come in springtime, or a deep valley full of loveliness and splendor, or a glorious sunset, or a beautiful face, intelligent, alive, not self-conscious and therefore no longer beautiful. I look at these things with intense delight and as I observe them there is no observer but only sheer beauty like love. For a moment I am absent with all my problems, anxieties and miseries - there is only that marvellous thing. I can look at it with joy and the next moment forget it, or else the mind steps in, and then the problem begins; my mind thinks over what it has seen and thinks how beautiful it was; I tell myself I should like to see it again many times. Thought begins to compare, judge, and say `l must have it again tomorrow'. The continuity of an experience that has given delight for a second is sustained by thought.

It is the same with sexual desire or any other form of desire. There is nothing wrong with desire. To react is perfectly normal. If you stick a pin in me I shall react unless I am paralysed. But then thought steps in and chews over the delight and turns it into pleasure. Thought wants to repeat the experience, and the more you repeat, the more mechanical it becomes; the more you think about it, the more strength thought gives to pleasure. So thought creates and sustains pleasure through desire, and gives it continuity, and therefore the natural reaction of desire to any beautiful thing is perverted by thought. Thought turns it into a memory and memory is then nourished by thinking about it over and over again.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

All vices like lust, greed, hatred leading to corresponding crimes are but fundamentally strong desires in the form of cravings and aversions.

These likes and dislikes for sensory pleasure and pain become stronger when one continually contemplates on them leading to stronger desires in the form of cravings and aversions that can sequence to vices and crimes.

Jiddu Krishnamurti in his book 'Freedom from the Known' elaborates on this psychological process...

https://ia800301.us.archive.org/6/items/FreedomFromTheKnownJ.Krishnamurti/Freedom%20From%20The%20Known%20-%20J.%20Krishnamurti.pdf

Isn’t that exactly how Christianity works also?

I’d say that what you described is pretty much everything from getting a pet dog to cooking a really good BBQ

 

[ajay0]

Isn’t that exactly how Christianity works also?

I would say Greek philosophy states similar thoughts.

Pleasure is the greatest incentive to evil. ~ Plato

Wars and revolutions and battles are due simply and solely to the body and its desires. ~ Socrates

Christianity talks of eternal hell for sinners and so on, and that the devil inspires you to commit sin.

There are no eternal hell in eastern religions like hinduism, buddhism and jainism. This is because hinduism states that each human being is innately divine due to the Self or Buddha nature within, and divinity within is not compatible with an eternal hell.

Also the devil is synonymous with Maya in Hinduism which in turn is related to the mind. It is the mind that is Maya and not some external entity.

"The mind is maya. Reality lies beyond the mind. So long as the mind functions there is duality, maya, etc. Once it is transcended the Reality shines forth. ~ Ramana Maharshi

 

[viole]

There seems to be a lot of varying answers on this so I was curious what people here think it would be.

Since sin is applicable only to Christian and co. theology, and it is meaningless otherwise, it can only be answered assuming it true. Ergo, my first sin is to have eaten a forbidden apple in Eden.

ciao

- viole

 

[blü 2]

Should we be grateful to the serpent? Is ingratitude to the serpent what has led to the evil we have in the world?

But that's only a story. We have not even the tiniest reason to think the world and its creatures came into existence as described in Genesis. On the other hand we have every reason to recognize the story as another example of origin myths and legends, found all over the world.

And regardless, there is no Fall of Man in the Garden story. The word "sin" is never used, anywhere. The ONLY reason Adam and Eve are expelled from the garden is clearly stated in Genesis 3:22-23, and it has nothing to do with sin and everything to do with God protecting [his] own position from potential rivals.

And further, on this theological side, Ezekiel 18, and not least 18:20, makes it unambiguous that sin can't be inherited.

And yet further, do you think it's a bad thing that humans can tell good from evil? Even though she's only mythical, Eve's statue should appear in every church as a heroine of humankind, instead of the subservient, not very smart BVM.

 

[blü 2]

All we know about early (pre)history of man is only from archeological evidence. Everything else is myth. We don't have evidence of the first sin so we can only speculate what happened.

Oldest known sin is maybe this:

In a cave in northern Spain, archeological detectives discovered the remains of a 430,000-year-old skull bearing what appears to be lethal, deliberately inflicted blunt force trauma. If the scientists' interpretation of the wound is accurate, the skull represents the earliest known murder.

Investigating the Case of the Earliest Known Murder Victim

A 430,000-year-old skull discovered in a Spanish cave bears evidence of deliberate, lethal blunt force trauma

www.smithsonianmag.com

Interesting link. Thanks.

However, while it certainly appears to be a homicide of some kind, I'd say that they can't declare it to be a murder until they can show it wasn't an execution or a ritual death.

 

[stvdv]

I have no intention of making this any sort of personal attack on you.

I know your intention is genuine; I like that about you

But this is a debate forum, where one can make one's point plainly and defend it if necessary.

I totally agree with you

"Experiencing God" is not the same thing as God appearing, or acting

Good point

All the purported incidences of people experiencing God are references to purely mental events of theirs.

Good point again
I can't disagree on that

When I say 'appear' I mean appear in public, in front of the cameras, as a real entity instead of an idea or notion generated internally by someone's brain.

I don't expect that to happen, even if God (in the form you have in mind) does exist

All the purported incidences of people experiencing God are references to purely mental events of theirs.

That's what my Master taught us, so, again I don't disagree

It isn't as if at different times in the past I haven't tried with complete honesty and openness.

I know you did try with complete honesty. Most important is to have Self Confidence. You tried your best, and no God showed up. Well, you got your answer.

But I object to the idea that the experiencer has to invent the apparent agent of the experience and label it God.

I agree again. God never told me to "label it God". Usually that's always people's minds inventing that idea (IMHO)

Why doesn't God appear to Buddhists, to Hindus, to atheists,? Why doesn't God have a weekly segment on national TV or at least make spot appearances on Colbert?

Even if God does exist in a form suitable to appear on national TV, I would not expect God to do that. Again, that's what people's minds create.

Most important IMO ... "Be Happy" and have Self Confidence. If you don't believe in God and you feel senang, I think you aced it (the God Quest)

 

[blü 2]

I know your intention is genuine; I like that about you

I totally agree with you

Good point

Good point again
I can't disagree on that

I don't expect that to happen, even if God (in the form you have in mind) does exist

That's what my Master taught us, so, again I don't disagree


I know you did try with complete honesty. Most important is to have Self Confidence. You tried your best, and no God showed up. Well, you got your answer.

I agree again. God never told me to "label it God". Usually that's always people's minds inventing that idea (IMHO)

Even if God does exist in a form suitable to appear on national TV, I would not expect God to do that. Again, that's what people's minds create.

Most important IMO ... "Be Happy" and have Self Confidence. If you don't believe in God and you feel senang, I think you aced it (the God Quest)

Sensang .. ah, it means 'cool!' Thanks for that.

 

[shunyadragon]

There seems to be a lot of varying answers on this so I was curious what people here think it would be.

Humans, homosapiens, have been around for over 300,000 years across Africa. By the evidence humans have always been natural territorial tribal humans since. If you equate the first "sin?" with humanity you have to go back at some point over 300,000 years ago,

 

[Daemon Sophic]

There seems to be a lot of varying answers on this so I was curious what people here think it would be.

As this is the General Religious Debates, then I must ask; by what religion or philosophy are you defining the word "sin"?

Some religions see carnal desire as sinful, while others celebrate sexual attraction and love.

Reproduction is pretty darn common among living organisms. SOooooo, if I used the more ..... shall we say "tight-wad" religion,.... then "sin" has been with us since one unicellular organism extended a pilus to another.

 

[McBell]

SOooooo, if I used the more ..... shall we say "tight-wad" religion,.... then "sin" has been with us since one unicellular organism extended a pilus to another.

Now those scriptures would be interesting to read

 

[Tinkerpeach]

As this is the General Religious Debates, then I must ask; by what religion or philosophy are you defining the word "sin"?

Some religions see carnal desire as sinful, while others celebrate sexual attraction and love.

Reproduction is pretty darn common among living organisms. SOooooo, if I used the more ..... shall we say "tight-wad" religion,.... then "sin" has been with us since one unicellular organism extended a pilus to another.

Fair enough

 

[Brian2]

And regardless, there is no Fall of Man in the Garden story. The word "sin" is never used, anywhere. The ONLY reason Adam and Eve are expelled from the garden is clearly stated in Genesis 3:22-23, and it has nothing to do with sin and everything to do with God protecting [his] own position from potential rivals.

If that was the reason then God would not have put a tree of life in the garden.

And further, on this theological side, Ezekiel 18, and not least 18:20, makes it unambiguous that sin can't be inherited.

It makes it clear that the judgement for sin cannot be inherited.

And yet further, do you think it's a bad thing that humans can tell good from evil? Even though she's only mythical, Eve's statue should appear in every church as a heroine of humankind, instead of the subservient, not very smart BVM.

We haven't done a good job in demonstrating that it was a good thing for humans to know good and evil.
I would say that eventually God may have taught Adam and Eve about good and evil when they were ready and could handle it. As it was, they weren't ready and neither are we since we all end up doing what is evil.

 

[blü 2]

If that was the reason then God would not have put a tree of life in the garden.

The Tree of Life in the Garden demonstrates clearly that death was always the intended lot of Adam and Eve. As you've read (Genesis 3:22-3), the (only) reason God chucked them out of Eden was to keep them from it.

It makes it clear that the judgement for sin cannot be inherited.

It makes clear that guilt is not inherited:

20. The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.​

And anyway, as I've mentioned, sin is never mentioned, not even once, in the Garden story, nor is it suggested that Adam and Eve would otherwise have been immortal. And underlining all that, it's only a folktale anyway.

We haven't done a good job in demonstrating that it was a good thing for humans to know good and evil.

Why do we build schools and hospitals, and help the poor, then? Why do we have road rules and traffic police?

I would say that eventually God may have taught Adam and Eve about good and evil when they were ready and could handle it. As it was, they weren't ready and neither are we since we all end up doing what is evil.

The story says nothing of the kind, of course.

 

[PearlSeeker]

As this is the General Religious Debates, then I must ask; by what religion or philosophy are you defining the word "sin"?

Some religions see carnal desire as sinful, while others celebrate sexual attraction and love.

Reproduction is pretty darn common among living organisms. SOooooo, if I used the more ..... shall we say "tight-wad" religion,.... then "sin" has been with us since one unicellular organism extended a pilus to another.

What is sin? Generally speaking sin is a morally bad act. We have free will and reason to act morally. According to some religions we also have to take into account what God revealed as law.

According to Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1757 The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three "sources" of the morality of human acts.​

​

1758 The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil.​

​

1759 "An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.​

​

1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.​

​

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.​

​

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Sin

A moral evil

www.newadvent.org

What religions see carnal desire as sinful?

 

[Brian2]

The Tree of Life in the Garden demonstrates clearly that death was always the intended lot of Adam and Eve. As you've read (Genesis 3:22-3), the (only) reason God chucked them out of Eden was to keep them from it.

The Tree of Life in the Garden demonstrates clearly that Adam and Eve were mortal and that if they had not eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they would have remained in Eden and eaten of the tree of life, which they were allowed to eat from.
So God did not want people who do evil (as humans did from then on) to have access to food that kept them alive and doing evil forever.

It makes clear that guilt is not inherited:

20. The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.​

And anyway, as I've mentioned, sin is never mentioned, not even once, in the Garden story, nor is it suggested that Adam and Eve would otherwise have been immortal. And underlining all that, it's only a folktale anyway.

Sin does not have to be mentioned in the story for us to know they sinned as per not trusting God and disobeying what He had commanded.

Why do we build schools and hospitals, and help the poor, then? Why do we have road rules and traffic police?

We have road rules and traffic police to avoid chaos on the roads and for the good of all.
Maybe we would not need road rules and traffic police if A&E had trusted God and allowed Him to teach them as He had in mind to do.
Schools and hospitals and helping the poor has come to the world through humans knowing what is good for themselves and others and wanting to have them in society.
Do you think that God was going to allow humans to populate the world without knowing these things?
Of course Christianity in the world has influenced the development of schools and hospitals and care for both rich and poor.

The story says nothing of the kind, of course.

We don't know exactly what God's plans were if A&E had not eaten the fruit. We can logically work it out however, and logic tells us that having the tree of life means that eating from it would have been in the plans, and populating the earth means that God was going to teach humans what was good and what was evil.

 

[blü 2]

The Tree of Life in the Garden demonstrates clearly that Adam and Eve were mortal and that if they had not eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they would have remained in Eden and eaten of the tree of life, which they were allowed to eat from.

Non sequitur. God failed to protect the TOTKOG&E from Adam and Eve, so there's no reason to think it would have occurred to [him] to protect the Tree of Life.

So God did not want people who do evil (as humans did from then on) to have access to food that kept them alive and doing evil forever.

Adam and Eve did no evil, and in fact were incapable of doing evil, since God had denied them knowledge of good and evil and therefore it was impossible for them to intend evil.

Sin does not have to be mentioned in the story for us to know they sinned as per not trusting God and disobeying what He had commanded.

I repeat. When each ate the fruit, each had no knowledge of good and evil (as a result of God's decision to that effect) and therefore was incapable of intending wrong and therefore was incapable of sin.

Do you think that God was going to allow humans to populate the world without knowing these things?

As I said, it's a folktale. It has no basis in history whatsoever. It's simply one of two versions in the bible of the Garden story.

Of course Christianity in the world has influenced the development of schools and hospitals and care for both rich and poor.

Yes, Christians have done good things for a long time, and Christianity as an organization was through the Dark Ages and indeed up to the Enlightenment, more or less, a leader in providing education, medicine, relief of poverty, and literacy in government. However, in the modern world, the secular versions of these things are vastly more effective and vastly less discriminatory, though still worthy and positive activities.

Note that all the major civilizations, India and China, for example, had other versions to provide similar services. Decency is not unique to Christians.

We don't know exactly what God's plans were if A&E had not eaten the fruit. We can logically work it out however, and logic tells us that having the tree of life means that eating from it would have been in the plans, and populating the earth means that God was going to teach humans what was good and what was evil.

It's a folktale. There's no basis, no point, in trying to project it onto a real society.

 

[Brian2]

Non sequitur. God failed to protect the TOTKOG&E from Adam and Eve, so there's no reason to think it would have occurred to [him] to protect the Tree of Life.

Sorry I don't follow what you mean. Why would God have wanted to protect the Tree of Life from A&E until after they had eaten from the TOTKOG&E?

Adam and Eve did no evil, and in fact were incapable of doing evil, since God had denied them knowledge of good and evil and therefore it was impossible for them to intend evil.

They did not have a knowledge of good and evil but did know that God had commanded them not to eat from the TOKOGAE. They disobeyed God, they rebelled against His will, they sinned even if they did not know it was called that. It was not an evil act as acts go, but it was wrong.

I repeat. When each ate the fruit, each had no knowledge of good and evil (as a result of God's decision to that effect) and therefore was incapable of intending wrong and therefore was incapable of sin.

They intended to disobey God, to rebel against God's will.
You are just assuming, from the name of the tree (TOKOGAE) that they were amoral beings at that stage.

As I said, it's a folktale. It has no basis in history whatsoever. It's simply one of two versions in the bible of the Garden story.

It might be a folktale in your eyes, but does that mean we toss out reasoning when working out what it means?
btw There aren't 2 versions of the Garden story in the Bible.

Yes, Christians have done good things for a long time, and Christianity as an organization was through the Dark Ages and indeed up to the Enlightenment, more or less, a leader in providing education, medicine, relief of poverty, and literacy in government. However, in the modern world, the secular versions of these things are vastly more effective and vastly less discriminatory, though still worthy and positive activities.

Note that all the major civilizations, India and China, for example, had other versions to provide similar services. Decency is not unique to Christians.

True, decency is not unique to Christianity.

It's a folktale. There's no basis, no point, in trying to project it onto a real society.

I'm just using reasoning to say stuff about the story and the meaning etc, just as you are. Is it OK for you to do that but not for me?

 

[Muffled]

I believe it was taking God in vain by Satan.