So they became Pak Protectors? That would explain the long lifespans.
I think you can have law in a wholly deterministic universe without free will. You can certainly have sin without free will - but I don’t think it would be the sort of sin that is described by the Catholic church. So I agree.
Some Protestants believe in predestination. But they also believe in free will. So in that case, sin is tied with free will as well.
Personally though, I can imagine an sentient and intelligent being acting like a sociopath in a deterministic universe, while other intelligent beings do not. In such a setting, methinks it could be reasonable to have a concept of sin.
-
To be clear I have neither endorsed nor condemned the concept of sin in this thread.
-
I assume by woo that you were referring to my description of Christian theism.
-
I hope I have adequately addressed the OP’s question.
Sorry, I don’t happen to believe in original sin, and if there is the ability to think of doing something not allowed, then god fucked up in the design and manufacture of humanity. Since it is claimed he is perfect, then we are not sinning when we make a free choice.
Now that is both funny and interesting. There are those who say that mathematics can explain anything in life. I am certainly not an expert in math (not even remotely) but have no reason to doubt the veracity of the concept. The Bible is, indeed, full of math.
But I love the irony of the essay. COS I SIN, cuz I sin, is indeed the basis for the concept of original sin. The quote from Romans 3 is one of the best verses in scripture to expound that.
Which brings us back to the original post, What is original sin, if the story is a parable. Someone said selfishness. I can’t say I disagree with that, since selfishness is likely enough the basis for disobedience.
The fact that I do sin, is evidence that there must have been an original sin. The fact that God gave us free choice, however, does not negate His godhead, but rather supports it. Some would argue that God does not want robots or automatons. I would concur. The bible clearly teaches that we must choose Him.
Giving us the freedom to choose and us not choosing Him, does not mean he goofed. On the contrary, the whole point of the bible is that he chose to give us a choice, and then, gave us the opportunity to change our minds. That is the point of the sacrificial shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross.
God didn’t goof, He gave us the choice. Choose carefully. The bible teaches that God is love, light, and where He is there is ultimate joy. Then where He is not, then there is no love, no light, no ultimate joy, only darkness and misery. As Jesus says, “outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
God does not send us to hell, He has given us a choice. If we choose Him, then when we die we get to be with Him; where there is love, light and joy. If we don’t choose Him, then we get to be where he isn’t; where there is no light (darkness), no love (that is we are forgotten not hated), and no joy (ie bitterness, weeping and gnashing of teeth).
If there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, then there is a cognizant ability to recognize our circumstances. Unfortunately, it is forever.
That is why Christ came and died, the very nature of our selfish nature chooses to disobey God even when there is only 1 rule, “Don’t eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”
Parable or not, the lesson is the same. So is the sin. And therefore so is the reason for Christ.
Is there anyone out there who can give me an AMEN?
No-at most it is evidence that you sin. Show me the chain of evidence that leads from your sinning now back to a singular Original Sin.
You request in the physical realm, the answer to a spiritual question. The answer lies in logic. The bible teaches, “in the beginning…” this establishes that there was a beginning. Even the “big bang theory” relies on a beginning. Time began at some point, and therefore ip so facto, eveything else has a beginning.
The story in Genesis 3, whether literal or parable, relates to that beginning and in context, is the beginning of sin.
So if there is sin, and time and everything else has a beginning, there must have been a beginning for sin. Hence original sin.
Remember your OP, if the story is a parable, then what is the Original Sin. Remember also that a parable is an example, an illustration or explanation of something else, usually some fact or truth we are trying to explain. So whether the story is a parable or literal, the lesson is the same. The context of the story is one of beginnings.
That brings me to a much more poignant question, If you don’t believe the story is true or that the parable is a means of explaining some truth, what is the point of your original question?
Maybe I am missing the point altogether, in that all you wanted to do was start a discussion. If that be the case, you have done so. Congrats.
You seem to be conflating “The origin of sin” with “Original Sin”.
How so. If sin originated, then there was an original. the story you quote clearly shows that Adam chose to disobey God. Hence disobedience is the original sin, whether stem from selfishness or something, he disobeyed God. He ate of the one tree he was told not to.
The history of the Immaculate Conception is interesting because most pre-eminent Medieval theologians argued against it, including Aquinas. IMO it arose from the original but more general veneration of Mary by the church fathers–they’d go out of their way emphasize her holiness, and St. Augustine specifically wouldn’t attribute any sin to her at all. Veneration of Mary was wildly popular, and I have to think that “immaculately conceived” was just one of many over-the-top epithets piled onto her by enthusiastic Christians.
It wasn’t until the 12th century that theologians began to question the idea specifically–it went against their key notion that Christ died and brought redemption for all humanity. But by then it had become popularly entrenched (like the more ridiculous legends of the saints) such that that no amount of scholastic teaching would refute it, so it was accomodated. Supporting theologians claimed that Christ did redeem Mary, just in a “special” way due to her special role in redemptive history–so special that she was granted IC status retroactively from the cross (hey, if Doctor Who can keep all the paradoxes and timey-wimey straight, so can Jesus).
Still, the RCC didn’t immediately affirm this doctrine even at the Concil of Trent, when Luther and the other Protestant groups were specifically rejecting the IC because (among other things) it was not based in scripture. IMO after the Reformation popular belief in the IC became a talisman among Catholics such that by the time of the 19th century Liturgical Movement there was a push to have the Papacy officially declare it a Catholic doctrine. The various French apparitions of Mary during this time (Rue de Bac, La Sallette, Lourdes) all emphasized the IC, and eventually the Pope was moved to explain the doctrine and declare it infallible.
In short, a popular appeal moved the church to modify its beliefs. Not surprising, since this seemed to happen a lot in the early church–people forget such tenets of Christianity like the human-divine nature of Christ were basically the result of a majority vote. Would that the same democratic spirit came over the church today.
Why should Mankind be tainted with Original Sin if the reason is because two fictional characters in a poorly-written parable were tricked into doing something stupid? Do we look down on foxes because a fictional fox had a bad case of sour grapes?
OK, so you don’t believe the story. I accept that and defend your right not to. But you asked the question. So are you now asking why?
If so, your fictional fox was not warned in advance. Remember the story/parable. God, in advance, advised Adam not to eat of a specific tree. He did not say you can’t eat of the tree of life, or of any other tree, only 1 tree. His reasons for warning Adam are not given, perhaps it was simply because He wanted Adam to remain innocent. Interestingly, most of us want our kids to remain innocent for as long as possible. But we do not know His reasons. We just know that He warned Adam, and through Adam, Eve, in advance.
In fact, in the story, Eve (who ate the forbidden fruit first) effectively dissuaded the serpents first two arguments. It wasn’t until the serpent said, “God does not want you to be like Him” (by the way that is a lie) that Eve succumbed to temptation and then persuaded Adam.
So unlike your fox, Adam was warned in advance. Fictional or otherwise. You asked if it is a parable, then my answers must be contained in the parable. They are there.
In regards to the first question, “Why should Mankind be tainted with Original Sin?”, we are no longer tainted, or at least don’t have to be. That is the purpose of Christ’s coming, dying, and rising from the dead. To overcome that “taint” and give us a choice again.
If the tale of Adam and Eve is a parable, then how did the actions of two fictional characters cause Original Sin. It’s a simple enough question, and I don’t need you to explain the Original Sin in the context of the story yet again-I get it. Let me try this a different way: Let’s say the story of Adam and Eve never made it into the Bible for some reason or another. What then would you say Original Sin was, and from whence do it come?
OK. Let’s say that.
Then there is no such thing as sin. That story is the basis of sin, but it is a biblical concept, pure and simple. If the story does not exist or is a flat out lie, then neither does sin. If the story does exist and is true and/or the parable is there to explain the truth, then sin exists.
Sin is a biblical concept. No other religion in the world, that I know of, except Judaism (a biblical religion) expresses the idea of sin. So if the story is a parable and the Christian faith is about a real God who really loves us, then the idea of original sin still holds.
But if there was no Bible, or no story of sin, then there would be no sin. You are not held accountable to anything other than what is right in your own eyes.
That provides us with a completely different dilemma, one of morality. On what do I base it? Whose opinion is right. A thief believes he has the right to steal from me. But, at least in our society, the law says he does not. So on what basis do we make such judgments. If there is no sin…
It is my contention that you can hold one position or the other. You can’t have both. How do you base moral judgments without having an absolute upon which you can base that judgment. If that absolute is gone, there can be no judgment. Which is precisely what those who do not want to choose God, want. They don’t want to be judged by God’s rules, they want to make up there own. The problem is that they have no foundation upon which to begin.
Not true. Religions that contain the concept of “sin”:
Islam
Hinduism
Baha’i
Shinto
OK, as I said, I wasn’t aware. Do any of them discuss the origin of sin?
From what little of Islam that I know, and I could very well be wrong, doesn’t it teach that doing more good outweighs doing less bad, so a person would still get to heaven? But how does it define bad. Is that what you mean when you say that Islam teaches a concept of sin?
From a study of Hinduism I did as a kid, and that was almost half a century ago, I believe it teaches levels of reincarnation based on how good (or bad) a life a person leads. But again, same question, what does it define as a good life, or how does it define a bad life that brings one back in some lower life form. If one comes back as a lower life form, and animals have no ability to distinguish right from wrong, how can they then again progress to heaven. Or I believe Hindus call it Nirvana, correct?
I know absolutely nothing about Shinto. And my understanding of Baha’i is that it tries to take the best of all religions. Who decides that? So still, where is the absolute basis of morality.
That being said, perhaps I should have phrased it thus: the Judeo/Christian faiths are the only ones that I know of that establish an absolute basis for sin as that which is established by an absolute and perfect God. Genesis 3 is only valid in the context of that assumption. Eliminate the assumption and the idea of Original Sin as espoused by the bible is eliminated as well.
So your answer to the question poised in the OP is that, if the story of Adam and Eve were a parable, there is no sin, let alone Original Sin?
No, my answer is that whether the story in Genesis is literal or a parable, the original sin is disobedience. If it is either literal or a parable, the answer is the same.
If the story didn’t exist, then sin does not exist as the bible defines it.
Might I ask what sect you belong to?
I am a pastor in the group of non-denominational churches of Calvary Chapel. Our Senior and founding pastor, Chuck Smith, just died, or rather went home to the Lord, yesterday. I am what I fondly call a fundagelical evandmental. That is I believe in the inherent inspired word of God. I believe in Jehovah, the father, Jesus Christ, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Triune Godhead of the Christian Faith. I believe the bible teaches absolute truths, whether through parable or literal stories, that God wants us to understand and follow.
I believe that because God gave us the freedom to choose, it does not negate His godhead or diminish who He is, the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresnt creator of the universe.
But I think you already new that.
I have greatly enjoyed the discussion as it has caused me to succinctly put forth a logical argument. I certainly do not mean to offend, and as I said earlier, I will defend to the death, your right to make that choice. God gave it to you, who am I to take it away.
This thread isn’t about me making any choices. I merely wanted to know the status of Original Sin from those that believe that the story of Adam and Eve is only a parable, considered the close tie between the concept and the parable.