Bullhockey. EVERYONE sins at times. Can you honestly say you’ve ever known one person who didn’t do something wrong now and then? We all have an urge to hurt other at times. That does not mean we are all doomed as a species. In fact, I point out that quite evil societies can flourish. The Vikings, for example, were a strong and very violent culture, and their raiding parties killed hundred and thousands until they declined in power.
Partly right. Adam and Eve figuratively chose to be free. It was their choice to make. But we all have to live with the consequences. Life isnt fair. So what? God never promised us life was going to be fair or fun or that He would save us from our own idiocies. From where I’m standing, he sent us everything we need to live perfectly in morality. But I’ve never seen anyone who was willing to make the whole trade-off.
To me OS (Original Sin) is the symbolic marker of mankind’s choice. Frankly (to Cerri), your lovely angel baby is (was) not perfect. She’s not evil either, but she has a flaw inside of her like we all do.
Being bad also depends greatly on where you live. Cooking a cat for dinner will send you straight to hell in Chicago, but in Taiwan, you’re being a good provider.
I am a skeptical agnostic (who is certain that if there IS a god, he doesn’t believe in christianity) and I’ve always wondered how “sin” can exist in the church when there are so many interpretations of it throughout the world.
My interpretation of the Bible’s story of the original sin was not that we would be incapable of performing evil acts, but that God would not hold man responsible for them.
The key to this interpretation is that (and this is difficult to ferret out in my translation) in the world-view of the writer of Genesis, the nakedness in which Adam and Eve lived before eating the fruit was inherently sinful.
The sequence of actions is this: They live naked, they eat the fruit, and then realize they are NAKED, and cover themselves up. God looks for them, and when they confess they covered their nakedness, he replies (again, in my translation): “Who told you you were naked?”
In other words, God was perfectly happy to let man sin in any way, because without the fruit, man would have no way of knowing it. Once the knowledge of good and evil is gained, man must be held responsible for his actions.
I agree with other posters that it is this knowledge, rather than an inherent badness, that is the legacy of Adam and Eve. For me the story implies not that we are incapable of being good or doomed to be evil, or that before eating the fruit we were incapable of sin, but that, having eaten the fruit, we can not claim we are unable to know the sinfulness of the actions we choose.
Are there any jewish people who can weigh in on this?
I understand that the old testament story Christains refer to is also common to Judiasm. Is the interpretation the same? I didn’t think the concept of Original Sin was developed until after Jesus’s time… is this true? What significance does the garden story have in Judiasm?
People who are willing to permit their own deeds to be claimed by any and all are capable of propelling the worst of evils into place.
All of us are obliged to ensure that evil obtains no credit for good works. The quote from the newspaper is the usual slap at human identity and reason. Intention and volition are components of rational existence. Blank assignation of credit is not permitted in a society of free men. Once one willingly abandons attribution, the abandonment of responsibility is often not far behind.
I am concerned that you might be encouraging the commission of good deeds through a sense of duty. Because if you think that things must be done out of duty, then there is an immediate disposal of credit or goodness. I refuse to accept the concept of duty to society. It is strictly duty to one’s self that drives participation in the social contract. Any inference of duty to society is a looter’s foot in the door. Our individual duty to achieve excellence automatically makes the world a better place. If we do not take responsibility and credit for any and all of our acts we promote a very dangerous mindlessness.
I think it was G.K. Chesterton who said he was not surprised that people didn’t believe many of the things Christians believe, because they are matters of faith, but that he didn’t understand why people didn’t believe in original sin, because, of all the things Christians believe, this is the only one that is capable of demonstrable proof.
The sin was disobedience to God. Eve believed a lie, yes, but Adam chose to sin. We have no indication he did anything other than making that choice on his own.
Those born all through history are not judged for the sin of Adam and Eve. The explanation in Genesis is given for understanding the consequence for us all. The children of Adam and Eve, all their offspring inherited this nature. The tendency, the inclination toward sin, if you like. Bear in mind that sin is more than the most serious failings which have been adopted into law, such as murder, robbery, rape. Sin is a failure to live to the standards of God. The highest possible standard. Ever get angry? Yup, that’s a sin. Ever get jealous? Yup, that too. Envy? Hatred? Selfishness? Lying? Yup, yup, yup, yup. All sin. Now, you might then argue that these surely aren’t worthy of eternal condemnation, and I guess I’d be tempted to agree. It seems that way to us, but then, we’re not God. Can you honestly picture heaven, an eternity of existence, shared with all the people in this world? Even if you separated out the worst of the worst, would you still find it agreeable to be surrounded by liars, cheaters, the lazy, the angry, the selfish? Ugh. <<shiver>>And also think about this: the same nature that results in minor sins is fully capable of ongoing persistent sin. For eternity?
Ecclesiastes 7:20
There is not a righteous man on earth
who does what is right and never sins.
All sin. Every one of us.
James 2:10
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
Breaking any law is sin, defined.
Romans 3:19-25
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
Observance of the law does not change the essential nature of man. It’s a tool to guide us to God.
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
I think this sums everything up. Man sinned and continues sinning. What was Adam’s intent when reaching for that apple? He wanted to have knowledge independent of God. He wanted autonomy, self determination. God let him choose that path. God has spent the last several thousand years letting men choose that path. Many have persisted upon that path. Some have seen the folly and reversed course in order to seek God. He gave a simple, clear, free offer of redemption. He paid the price. All we have to do is accept it. Seems so simple. Yet so many turn away.
Who here is saying that any rational being would have (or could possibly justify) such a sneeringly condescending attitude about doing good? Your assumption that such a mentality represents any sort of common element in performing good smacks of Christianity’s relentless attempts to tar the human ego with the broad brush of Original Sin.
Rest assured that I have seen this exact sort of attitude. When I was a chef for the Emergency Housing Consortium’s homeless shelter in Silicon Valley, I saw precisely this type of twisted mindset. The upper management viewed their “clients” as less than human. As an aside, while sitting in the Consortium’s director’s office, I was sexually harassed by my scumbag manager in her presence. She registered not one whit of offense or concern at this manager’s open speculation about my sexual orientation.
I quickly understood the basis of the organization’s motivation and quit immediately.
And what possible demonstrable proof is there for Original Sin? I am nearly awestruck by this baseless assumption.
The whole of human history has relied upon the humane and loving conduct of humans. Healthy children cannot be raised in an unloving and harmful environment. Truly evil humans do not reproduce well, their own character deficiencies have a pronounced tendency to cripple the minds and bodies of their young.
Original sin as I understand (and believe in) it simply says that we are not all born completely innocent and good and only go bad because we get corrupted by “society” or something.
djwalker, your Chesterton reference is what I was thinking of when I started reading the thread. I think his point is that there’s ample evidence for original sin: if you look around, you can see that people are pretty messed up. None of us are untainted by sin (moral unhealthiness, separation from God, choosing evil over good, “missing the mark” of being what we were meant to be, perversely attracted to the “dark side”). And we can’t blame it all on external influences; there’s something built in to our human nature that, were it not for some combination of benevolent exernal influences, our own moral choices/efforts, and the grace of God, would rot us and make us go horribly wrong.
I agree with your last paragraph. I believe that human beings are created in God’s image, and therefore basically good. However it is only a matter of observation that nobody is perfect, and that’s the standard you’re dealing with when discussing mankind’s morality in relation to God. To believe in the concept of original sin is not (necessarily) to believe in total depravity.
I’ve been lucky enough to witness more good than evil in my life. Some aren’t so lucky, I know. I believe firmly that a single act of good is more powerful than a whole slough of evil. I was only pointing out that the idea of original sin is a lot like saying ‘nobody’s perfect’.
Again, on the OS issue I’m pretty much on both sides of the fence, but I continue to have a problem with this:
You’re not, by any chance, a student of that lovely lady Ayn Rand, are you? Some of your writing sounds quite familiar.
Suffice it to say, nearly all of this is not only false, but demonstrably so. There are a number of basic premises and assumptions that you are starting off on which are patently ridiculous. If Stalin fed the hungry, and in some cases he did, does it take anything away from his evil? Since Hitler revitalised the German economy, does this take away from his evil?
Put simply, no.
In other words, no matter who gets the credit for the acts, people are judged on all their acts.
WRT the original quote, I still remain confused as to how you get from that to your conclusion. It never states, nor expresses a desire, to not give or receive credit; merely that the credit should not be the justification for the acts. If you do something good, I will give you credit for that act, you don’t have to think about it, it just happens. Do you suppose that if you went and worked in a homeless shelter and never told anyone, that the “credit” would fly out of the window and attach itself to anyone, and suddenly we would have peculiar stories that Pol Pot was working with the homeless in Alabama? Of course not, such a thing is utterly ridiculous. Yet, this is apparently what you are warning against.
God came to the Garden of Eden, and called Adam and Eve.
Eve said, “I have nothing to wear.”
Animals don’t sin. They have no capacity for sin. They are sometimes cruel, selfish, greedy, and even proud. But they are only living by their nature. Man, and Woman, can perceive beyond their nature. They know they are naked. They covet. And there is sin. Being unable to give up that knowledge, human life was forever changed because of the beginnings of knowledge. And because of it, we, unlike animals, need Salvation.
The argument about whether God knew it would happen, or was surprised by it all is a maze with no exit. The world is. Its nature is not a matter of someone’s fault. Our nature is no longer the definition of our character. We invented fault, because we invented thinking. We are each our own fault. Fortunately, we are each also much loved. Of the two, love is the greater.
Tris
“These things that are pleasin’ you can hurt you somehow.” ~ Don Henley & Glenn Frey ~
In someone as well spoken as yourself, this is an extremely alarming admission.
How does this matter whatsoever? Whatever tastes I enjoy in reading should have absolutely nothing to do with the intrinsic validity of my position.
When you conduct pogroms and consign untold masses to the gulags in order to free up extra food stocks, this is not known as “feeding the hungry.” When you liquidate an entire subset of your’s and the world’s population, you are not revitalizing your nation’s economy. (The word “vital” refers to life, not mass murder.) Please do not conflate good deeds with the acts of vicious tyrants. Good had nothing to do with the acts of Stalin and Hitler.
Attempting to justify good deeds by dint of some presupposed future credit is to defy causality. Just as nutrition does not precede digestion, so it is that credit cannot possibly precede any given act. You are now in the realm of imputing motivation to someone else’s deeds. This is rather thin ice for any rational being, save some sort of mindreader.
Now we are violently agreeing.
I am obliged to suppose that you’ve never had anyone claim credit for some sort of work you have done. I have and find it to be a most disgusting form of theft. Yes, unattributed works can be usurped by those confronted with people ashamed to take pride in their good deeds. I am proud of the good I do in this world. I am unashamed to say so and do not perform these good deeds for some undefined and nebulous future credit. Again, that is a reversal of causality. I do them, because I can and because I know the world is a better place for them.
Well, I’m touched. But if you want elaboration, I simply mean this. At root, Original Sin says that all human beings are inherently bad. You would claim that all human beings are inherently good. I would say that all human beings are inherently human, and leave it there.
Defensive much? I asked a question, nothing more. Thus the reason it was in small type. I didn’t feel it had that much of a bearing on your position, other than the simple fact that it would help me understand a little bit of where you’re coming from in general.
Well, the thing is, it kinda IS. But this highlights what I was saying before. That they did, on the one hand, things that could be called good, does not make their badness fly out of the window.
Well, to be honest, you are. You might not be doing it ethically or morally, but Hitler’s policies revitalised the German economy, abhorrent though they were. The fact that they had positive effects does nothing except prove that ends can often not justify means.
What? This is rather a flagrant breach of common sense, if anything. People do things in order to get the credit for them all the time. It’s not the only reason people do things, but people do things for all kinds of wierd reasons. I don’t see how I am doing something particularly illogical when I point out that, over a population, some people do things for some reason. I’m not “imputing motivation” for any specific person’s actions, merely some theoretical person.
Um. Good.
So what is the problem with the quote?
It’s an aphorism. I think you’re taking it way too seriously. Sure, if you take it as meaning, specifically, “if you write a book, and your agent says he wrote it and publishes it under your name, don’t worry about it, it’s all some nebulous good,” then, yeah, I’d probably have a problem with that. But it’s not saying that. It’s saying “do things for the deed, not so that people will thank you for them.” But if you do something good just for the deed, and some guy wanders around and says “hah, I did this,” well, I wouldn’t worry about it, frankly. He’s a liar, big deal. The chances are he’ll be found out about it, and if you spend your time wandering around saying “actually, I fed that homeless guy,” you won’t actually get any work done. As an aphorism, it obviously falls down in certain scenarios, but it’s hardly a ringing endorsement of the obliteration of self worth and self esteem. If anything, it’s advising you to base your ideas of self worth on yourself and what you do, not on what others think of you.
It’s my understanding of the Russian Orthodox church (perhaps all of the Eastern branch Christian faiths) that the concept of “original sin” is not actually a significant part of the faith, if it is a part at all. The Russian Orthodox as I understand it is not interested in redemption; if redemption is necessary, it was accomplished. Rather, they are interested in becoming as much like God as can be managed, following the example presented by Jesus as a being fully human and fully divine. Thus, a Russian Orthodox baby who dies unbaptised goes to heaven, as it has not had the opportunity to sin.
My personal tack on original sin tends to come down to a bafflement that a person can believe in such a thing and call themselves a Christian; if it was ever actually an issue, surely it was the thing that Jesus intended to fix with his life and sacrifice. So to believe that original sin is still a going issue seems to me to be tantamount to a claim that Christ failed.
In the book of Romans, Paul spends a great deal of time lamenting the sinful nature of our bodies and the inability to be completely free of temptation toward sin. A very illuminating book.
As to the concept of original sin, perhaps this is something more accurately featured in Catholic teaching, as my church (AOG) follows more directly the concept of inherited sin nature. So perhaps I’ve been defending a concept I don’t find scriptural evidence to support. Consider my posts in this light, if you would.
Well, I can’t add much to this discussion that hasn’t already been said, but I do feel a need to stick up for the devil (or serpent, whatever). What he said wasn’t a lie (at least not in my translation).
3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Their eyes were opened to good and evil. No lie there. And for the part about death- they didn’t die. At least not right away. Surely God didn’t intend for them to live forever? If that was His original plan, it was a spectacularly bad one. Think about all the countries that have population problems now, and then imagine if nobody ever died. I bet God didn’t think about that when he told Abraham his descendants would be as numerous as the stars. Where’s God going to put millions of billions of people?
So, in conclusion, it turns out you can trust the Evil One. Sorry for the hijack.
