My apologies, again, I did not mean to offend.
Of these religions, Islam considers sins strictly as acts, not a state of being. The Baha’i–as a reactionary cousin of Islam–follows this same general line, though I’m not as familiar with the details. I’m also not as familiar with Shinto, but “sin” in Hinduism (and Buddhism) is basically negative karma–sinful acts are those which are repaid by the cosmos with negative consequences.
Comparative religion scholars found similarities between these religions and Christianity, and used Christian terms as a shorthand to explain them. But it would be a mistake to say these religions have a concept of sin that is the same as (or, IMO, even close to) what Christians mean by sin. WmAE is correct in the sense that Judeo-Christian “sin” is uniquely defined as more than just “doing bad things”, and that definition is critical to understanding the concept of original sin.
The RCC allows for considerable wiggle-room on Genesis 3, basically saying the particular details of the story don’t matter and do not need to be taken as historic truths. What they do insist upon, however, is that humanity was once in a blissful state of grace, then committed some act against God which cost them that grace, and that all humanity is descended from that act. The RCC will even concede–albeit with some strong caveats–that humanity did not necessarily descend biologically from one set of parents, but that somehow–glosses by the ever-convenient “it’s a mystery”–humanity shares in that act of disobedience.
That hasn’t stopped theologians from trying to explain that mystery, given that most folks don’t assume A&E were real people. If the story is taken as a parable/fable, it is only effective if its basic elements are strongly plausible. The fact is, if I were Adam or Eve, I’d probably do exactly the same thing they did, even if there were no talking snake egging me on–a clever way of showing how humanity may have “descended” from Adam by declaring “if one would do it, all would do it”.
It’s pretty weak sauce, but it gives the RCC the ability to keep most of the old theology without looking too ridiculous in the process. That’s pretty much the history of theology right there :-).
Original Sin refers to the contention that sin and the struggle with it are intrinsic to the human condition. Sin exists because humans are moral agents. If the Adam and Eve parable didn’t exist, another one would have to be created to convey this core concept. That’s my understanding of mainline Christian doctrine.
From what I know ‘original sin’ is that we (humanity - as children of God) did not receive enough needed caring from the angels and an arch angel (Satan and his angels), the sin is that of angels and ultimately an archangel and not ours, though we are bearing their lack of parental care, including assuming their sin is ours.
Have you ever considered writing a book on the subject?
I’ve heard this so many times, and yes considered it, though the writing part got in the way. Seems like too solitary an activity.
No, no, no-I really think you should take the time and effort to pound this one out. Shut off all the distractions, buckle down and do nothing but write. Nothing but good will come of it, I really think.
I’m sure someone told Muhammad that too
a.k.a. be careful what you wish for.
Well, the original sin, if placed in the context that sin is about time and mortality, can be interpreted as “original sin”, “first mortals”. Eating the apple is surrendering to mortal nourishment and being dependant on acquiring food for sustaining the physical body.
“God” can be seen as immortal and invincible energetic being. If we choose to “receive god”, it may be about reaching spiritual ascension so that we reach a point where we do not require physical sustenance.
You can put it in the context that Adam and eve, gods children disobeyed him because they were rebellious teens and god has left them to learn their lesson, to experience mortality in contrast to immortality. How can you beCome great without having tasted the “fruit of evil and good”. In other words, how can you know good if you have not known evil to differentiate it from an opposite? God was being a responsible parent to warn them but he didn’t control them to his desire.
The seven sins are just behaviours that waste time.
Life is a journey for us, the descendants of god to master the mortal life in order to progress and ascend mentally, emotionally and physically. Thus we are always forgiven because it is about learning from mistakes and rising above it and becoming the best being that we can be. This life is just a challenge.
I do agree with your interpretation of the biblical anecdotes but I also believe that mortality is not permanent and that there is the opportunity to eventually go where god is, not necessarily after death.
I just wanted to add that I appreciate your consideration of the mathematical theory, I do want to know what others think because it is very amusing and fascinating and above all, more logical than many other takes on the bible stories.
If anything, we are pretty much talking about the same thing but with different terms and names but there are constant parallels between what we really intend to communicate
The invention of man’s imagination.
I’m not a believer anymore, and when I was I never thought much about Original Sin. But this seems interesting, so I’ll take a whack at it.
The evolution of H. sapiens can be seen as a process where a species of mindless animals became a species of thinking, feeling people, imbued with immortal souls. Animals cannot sin, because they have no concept of right or wrong. Humans, with our superior intellect, are unique in that we can make such a distinction, and therefor we are capable of sin. It stands to reason that at some point in evolution our ancestors ceased being mindless animals and became thinking, feeling people, imbued with immortal souls.* At that point original sin became part of the human condition. It wasn’t an act, as much as it was a change in the nature of humanity (or pre-humanity, as it may be).
In the parable of Adam and Eve eating the fruit changed the first people in some fundamental way. In reality, it was evolution that changed our mindless, animal ancestors into people capable of sin.
*In truth, I think it was more of a gradual change from mindless animal to thinking, feeling person. Also, I don’t have any reason to think souls exist.
In a way, doesn’t that make evolution the original sin, or at least the cause of the original sin?
Well, that’s as good a guess as any of the others being presented in this thread.
Religion: is there a better catalyst for stimulating ‘creative minds?’
I think Steven J Gould would have demurred. While evolution caused our intelligence it’s by no means clear that evolution trends towards intelligence. If it merely trends towards diversity you might expect intelligence to appear, but only as a byproduct. And human moral sentiments maybe have other necessary conditions: I doubt whether non-social animals would evolve much in the way of morality, however intelligent they are.
ETA: Though I suppose non-social animals entering symbiotic relationships with other species might develop morality. But arguably they could also be characterized as social as well.
Bahai is reactionary? Visit “Eleven essentials: the Bahai principles as taught by Abdu’l-Baha in London” and tell me what’s reactionary. Equality of men and women? Separation of church and state? The unity of humanity? Or would it be this one: “If religion is made the cause of enmity it yields not solidarity but rather troubles, and the absence of religion is better than its existence. The abandonment of religion is preferable to this.”
For those not familiar with the details, try the Wikipedia article on Bahá’í views on sin Quote:
Anytime Scripture or its principles are inserted into a topic of conversation outside the church someone is bound to be ‘offended.’ Heb.4:12
Aside: If the genesis of “original sin” is the quest, where better to start than the fall of “The Father of lies” himself, Satan
Isaiah14: 12-15
A poor choice of word; “developed in reaction to” would have been better. Bahai is “reactionary” only in the sense that it evolved in reaction to Islam, much like Protestants vis-a-vis Catholics or Buddhist vis-a-vis Hindu.
What do those verses have to do with Satan?
I was raised Episcopalian, and I feel like there’s a bit of confusion going on here. As others have said “Original Sin” and the original sin are not the same thing; it’s probably not unlike how people seem to confuse the Immaculate Conception with the Virgin Birth. Original Sin is the doctrine that, since the Fall of Man, all humans are inherently sinful and need redemption. According to Genesis, eating from the Tree of Knowledge was the first sin and led to the Fall, so for those who are Biblical literalists, I suppose you could say that those events are linked.
I left the Episcopal Church prior to changing my beliefs away from Biblical literalism, so I’m not sure exactly how they would reconcile the idea that the story is a parable, but here’s my take on it. I think that the story of eating from the Tree of Knowledge is just a recognition that at some point as man was evolving, we gained knowledge and an ability for self-determination, free-will. So, if we accept free-will, as I believe most who accept Original Sin as a doctrine do, then the ability to make decisions carries with it the ability to choose to sin, thus inherent sin. So, ultimately, all Original Sin really says is that essentially it is impossible for any person to have never sinned, and so we all need guidance and absolution for our sins to enter heaven.
By this same concept that our ability for self-determination evolved, picking out the first “original” sin is impossible in exactly the same way that picking out the first human is impossible. There just isn’t a hard line that separates modern humans and our sinful nature from an ancestor that lacked enough self-determination to be meaningfully described as being able to sin.