A couple of years ago, my honorary grandson Brandon was trying his utmost to express a pretty good insight for a 7-year-old into human nature, but didn’t have the vocabulary to say what it was he meant clearly. I gave him a couple of grown-up words that it sounded like they were what he meant. He looked up at me with big brown eyes and an innocent expression, and said, “But Uncle Dave, I’m only a little kid – I don’t know those words yet!” 
My premise, in this thread, is not that religion is destructive, but that some religions preach a particular doctrine that I think has destructive consequences.
Actually, I *do *believe that religion qua religion is ultimately destructive, but that’s another thread. For now, I’m merely focusing on the “original sin” doctrine, and I realize that it’s anything but universal.
Why, Polycarp, you old Pagan you! 
Seriously, many Wiccans I know (myself, included) would find this statement to parallel their own beliefs (not exactly, but close).
Many Wiccans, I think, would find that relationship between humans the the Gods similar to that of a 40 year old adult and a 5 year old child. Children are inexperienced and need to be taught and that older, experienced adult would be a great teacher.
The difference in Wicca and Christianity is the use of the word sin. Wiccans would agree with the idea of humans being ignorant and inexperienced, but not sinful, not in the sense that so many Fundamentalist Christians mean.
Then don’t try to apply it as a universal if you realize it’s not. Your OP has it as a universal trait amongst Christians. It’s not.
Actually, I brought up this thread to my mother today, asking at what age children become accountable for their sins, and she immediately answered “7.” She was given a Catholic education growing up, and that was one of the basic doctrines she was taught.
CJ
Siege: For us LDS types, it’s 8 years old for the children of LDS and 12 years old for the children of others.
I did not imply that it was a universal; that’s why I *asked *whether it was.
So when a group of kids taunts and bullys a weaker kid, that in no way is a sin? When children steal from others, that is okay? When children throw a tantum serious enough to result in bystanders getting beaten on, that is not worthy of reproach?
Children are just as prone to sinning as anyone else. Jesus summarised the law as loving God wholly and loving one’s neighbour wholly. Kids have a hard time following this simple rule too.
UnuMondo
No you didn’t, panache. You asked for someone to justify that belief. There’s a decided difference between asking if that’s the belief and asking what the justification for it is.
panache: Yep, you’re right. I see you did ask if all Christian denominations preached it. Hmmm…maybe that could’ve come before the bit about the justification? Oh well, sorry about missing that bit. Carry on!
My POV is more conservative:
Yes, I differentiate between honest mistakes and sins. If I do something wrong without knowing it is wrong, it isn’t a sin (but I do think that being willfully blind to what is wrong is wrong in and of itself). I do think children can sin - when a child knows doing thing A is good and doing thing B is bad, and deliberately chooses thing B - the kid has sinned. And yes, I think a child younger than 7 can sin. IMHO, how old is probably different for each kid. But it’s not something I spend a great deal of time obsessing over.
In fact “sin”/“sinner”/“sinning” is not something I spend time obsessing over. I do try and make deliberate choices, think through my actions, do the right thing, and do what I can to fix it when I fail (which I know I have done and will do again). So, the label “sinner” comes across differently to me than I’m guessing it does for others. It’s a rather weak pejorative, up there with “masticator.” More an acknowlegment that I’m not perfect and neither is anyone else.
wo! My son’s still in the clear.
he he
Why are you being so obstinately bigoted? You put forth a specific model of “sin”. You have been told that it is not universal to all forms of Christianity, that some have a “medical” model instead of a “legal” model.
I am not “evil” for being sick, but I still NEED TREATMENT!!! That is the Orthodox view of “sin”.
Of course, I expect you to simply narrow-mindedly bull onwards, insisting that my Church’s definition of “sin” cannot exist.
um i granted dont know much of the whole theological side of things, but couldnt we agree that in at least two year olds perhaps those much younger we can see the traits of greed, pride and selfishness and anger exhibited in such a way which using a definition from above falls short of the glory of god and is therefore sin
i see sin as the imperfect actions we do or thoughts we think that separate us from the perfect god we serve. but the idea that we all sin is only part of the package.
the thing is its not “i am an inadequate failure” but rather “i am an inadequate failure, in christ dwells and with whom all things are possible” if you have only the first the granted christianity seems pretty bad. but if you are humble enough to acept the second life really does become much much better.
and i dont know bout babies, i guess that is ultimatly in gods hands, but i think we can all say for our selves we have fallen somewhat short of perfection.
HI dopers. This is my first foray into GD. (Give a big hello to the newbie.) It’s been an interesting read. Here’s my take on it. And if you need a label for me, you can call me a Pentecostal.
NT Christianity is built on OT Hebraic thinking; which makes it worthwhile examining the OT for clarification of any concepts we come across – in this case sin. I don’t read a whole lot of either Hebrew or Greek so I won’t go into etymological details. Instead I’ll look at the contexts.
Leviticus has different sacrifices for trespass (chapter 5) and “sin” (chapter 4). Trespass is overstepping a boundary. Often it is unintentional or unknown, maybe carelessness or perhaps a “sin of omission”. Similar idea to “missing the mark”. It deals with the idea that we are not perfect, fallible and prone to mistakes.
Christianity acknowledges and even at times focuses on this kind of trespass. A fact that often repulses people and causes Christianity to be maligned. I would counter that there are consequences for trespass. A full and complete gospel that meets all human needs must acknowledge this kind of sin and its consequences and address them head on. Not comfortable or popular, but necessary I think.
The sin-offering mentioned in chapter 4 is a bit more subtle. It deals with the fact that we have a propensity to wrongdoing – we are selfish rebellious or defiant by nature (if you peel us back a little to expose our motives), and often deliberately do what we know is wrong to gratify the baser elements of our nature. If you want the link to original sin, here it is. The tendency to do this kind of thing is something inherited from Adam. It’s not that we are accountable for what Adam did; we are accountable for our own deviant actions.
Again I would say that this is uncomfortable and unpopular talk, but that a full treatment of the human condition must address this propensity to sin, this sinful nature, head on.
Someone will accuse me of reading between the lines, or more likely stating stuff that just isn’t found in those passages of Leviticus. You are right. But recognising the different treatment allows us to see a bit more deeply into the NT – especially those parts that seem to be contradictory.
In Romans chapters 1-4, Paul states the problem of our sins (trespasses) and the solution. We all fall short. Some of us have more knowledge of it than others. But we all violate even the principles of our own consciences. The solution, Jesus’ sacrificial death and righteousness appropriated by faith. Chapter 5 begins “therefore we have peace with God…” Problem one solved.
Chapters 5-7 deal with the problem of the sinful nature. (Ever see a professing Christian do something wrong?) Paul’s struggle: “the good that I will to do, that I do not do. Instead the evil I will not to do, that I keep on doing.” The solution: death to the sinful nature – or what is often called the flesh. Sorry, no shortcuts – long slow and painful.
The age of accountability has been mentioned by a few. My thoughts on that are a little different from those stated: I am not an adherent of the “magic age” doctrine. Instead I believe that God holds us accountable for actions that we deliberately do wrong. (And provides redemption for the same.) If you can tell me the youngest age that a child can express defiance or malicious intent, then I will tell you the youngest age that God can reach that child and give his solution to the dual problem of sin in his/her life.
Long first post. Short for a proper answer. I hope someone finds it helpful.
nearly 24 hours and no reply.
Uuhh, I feel great. Killed that conversation.
but I am up to 25 posts now.
Hey, J_sum! Great post – I wish all first posts in GD were that well thought out and expressed. The thing is, you summarized the traditional evangelical Christian understanding of sin extremely well – it felt like you were channeling Paul wrting Romans! 
But in a forum that is very much cross-cultural (when first typed, I somehow typoed that as “cross-clitoral”! :o), not subscribing as a group to the lordship of YHWH or the validity of the Bible, addressing the issue of what is “sin” and how does it affect people must be done in a quite different context. That’s not saying you’re in error – it’s saying you’re asking people to subscribe to presumptions they’re not prepared to presume, and you need to restate your logic using different terms and categories that don’t presuppose a shared set of assumtions that in fact aren’t shared.
I just came in to this, so it’s hard to know which replies to pick up on. Starting with the OP, I guess my basic reply is, “what world are you living in?” I mean, “innocent child?” Have you really looked at children playing? They tend to be horribly cruel to each other. They are selfish, hit each other, tease each other unmercifully, call each other names, are cruel to those different, to the weak, to anyone who can’t keep up. For Pete’s sake, ** look** at children who are not taught what right and wrong are! The concept of original sin is not Christian — it is simple observation. As for not knowing it is wrong, ask a child if he does not know it is wrong that someone else took his toy away. Really, this is nonsense. We do have a moral sense, and we see it violated every day. There is lots of gray there — that is why there are differences in the moral codes of different cultures — but in general we agree that stealing is wrong, hurting people is wrong, killing those weaker than you is wrong, and that those who do this are evil people. These are not artificial rules made up by strange folks in robes to impose a strange Patriarchial power trip on the rest of us. And children, left to their own devices, steal and hit each other, and the stronger ones do it to the weaker ones, unless they are stopped and taught to act differently. Innocent?
What world are you in?
hypnoboth
Thanx for the compliment Poly. Of course I understand that not everyone subscribes to the lordship of YHWH as I do. Hence the prefix “Here’s my take on it” My guess is that variants on this question have been on GD for as long as great debates have been on GD.
Not sure about channelling Paul though. I don’t think that’s allowed.
Byzantine Catholic Chick getting into this…
I wasn’t raised in any particular religion, but when I was in Jr. High, my parents decided that I was a bad kid and sent me to a fundamentalist Baptist school to be straightened out.
These people were hardcore. They took the concept of Original Sin to the extreme that not only was the sinful nature inherited, but also the guilt. I actually had a teacher tell a little informal Bible study group that babies who die without getting saved go to Hell. One of the students managed to find a Scripture that corrected this notion, but still… It gave me a really warped notion of God, of what sin was, and what salvation was about.
There is a contingent among Fundamentalist Protestants that teach that human beings are, for all intents and purposes, born damned because of Original Sin, but that saying the Sinner’s Prayer (some variation of, “Lord, I know that I am a sinner, and I’m sorry for my sins. I ask you to come into my heart and save me”) gives you a Get Out of Hell Free card. At that moment, all sins, past, present and future are forgiven, and entrance into Heaven is guaranteed even if you fall back into sin afterward. You just don’t get the reward you would get if you remain a faithful Christian (abstain from sin). Christians of this ilk place very little value on charitable works. “They won’t get you into Heaven…” Granted, there are some very kind and loving people in these churches who do aid the poor if they can, or do volunteer work for various charities, etc., but on the whole, “good works” are de-emphasized. They define Christianity as what you don’t do (drink, smoke, play cards, dance, go to movies, have sex outside of marriage), rather than as what you do (a wide assortment of charitable works that show the Love of Christ to mankind).
The result of my having been exposed to this kind of teaching was that, from the age of about eighteen until I was nearly thirty, I hated, and I mean, literally hated God.
On the positive side, though, having gone through this has given me a great measure of patience with assorted non-Christian types, ranging from atheist to pagan, who have a downright venomous attitude toward Christianity. I’ve been where they’re standing, so I can have a more understanding and loving attitude toward them, and hopefully can help clear up some of their misconceptions about Christian belief.
However, I have very little patience with the anti-Catholicism of many fundamentalist Protestants. It was in the Catholic Church that I found a God who was loving, forgives us our little imperfections, and even the big violations of morality, so long as we strive to be perfected in Him. So when people from the belief system that gave me such a negative view of God, which stemmed largely from their concept of Original Sin challenge me for my Catholic faith, I tend to get a little angry.
OK, I’ll get off my soapbox now.
I guess my point is that, yes I do believe in Original Sin, but there is an extreme view of it, which, if taught to a child, can do them a lot of emotional and spiritual harm.