Importance of Original Sin

The concept of Original Sin as marketed in many of the chapters of Club Christian is a strange beast, based on taking a couple verses from Paul out of context (Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22), is not found in Judaism at all and was first marketed in the Second Century AD.For most folk including many chapters of Club Christian including the Roman Catholic Church, Original sin is simply the general trend of all humans to screw up and something handled by honest evaluation of your behavior, admitting when you do screw up, being sorry that you screwed up, trying to make amends and trying not to make the same mistake in the future.But Original Sin as marketed in many other chapters of Club Christian is a cheap and handy cop-out, it's not the individual's fault, because someone else screwed up they were born sinful ...BUT WAIT THERE's MORE...IF you join in the next fifteen minutes you will get your "Born Again" certificate and "Saved by the Blood of the Lamb" t-shirt...AND you will also get your Glow in the Dark Get Outta Hell free card.The fact is that Paul never mentions which passages from the Old Testament stories he is referencing and when you read the passages they quote it certainly doesn't seem to apply to the Genesis 2&3 myth. It might be possible to make a case that he is referring to the Cain and Able story but again, that only would apply to descendants of Cain which really looks more like the Farmer Cattleman battles and the fight over open range.

Well, how do you know they refer to either or Adam or Eve?Let's figure that out first.

Read what you quoted and emphasized.Then go read the actual stories.Is Adam the pattern of Jesus? Reading the story in Genesis 2&3 I cannot see that.Second, if Paul is claiming that death entered through Adam, then again, Paul is simply wrong. Death exists before Adam is even created and can be seen because in the story, God creates the Tree of Life. If death did not already exist then there is no point to even create a Tree of Life.Also, go back and read the story in Genesis 2&3. Yes, there are specific curses placed on Adam, Eve and the serpent, but the curses are precisely listed. It is only those things that got passed down and not one of them deals with Original Sin.In addition, until after Adam and Eve had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, there was no way they could even sin. Until they had a knowledge of right and wrong they had no way to even know they should obey one authority figure over another.Still with me?

Does a good parent punish an infant because it disobeys before the child is old enough to understand right from wrong?

Remember, I am a Christian.

Actually, I'm pretty much middle road Christian at least in the Anglican Communion.What sin?Sin comes from doing things wrong. We screw up, don't always live up to either expectations or what we are capable of.Are you familiar with the Days of Atonement?

Yes, the author(s) of the Gospel of John was a revisionist, that is why John is not included in the Synoptic Gospels.John is different from the other Gospels since it is the only one where the author has the Jesus character expound at length (although usually only to his disciples) on his divine nature, something missing from the three earlier stories, and on the nature and purpose of the miracles performed.It is also different because it has few if any of the morality and life lessons found in the parables of the other three Gospels, takes a totally different position regarding salvation and appears to be a transitional work written at a time when a separate "Christian" identity as opposed to Christianity as simply another Jewish sect was beginning to emerge.It's most likely that there was no single author of John, that none of the various authors had any personal experience of Jesus, that the book itself evolved into its current state over period of a quarter century or more within a separate sect of members of a John based chapter of Club Christian.The Gospel of John though is totally irrelevant to anything related to the issue of Original Sin which is an even later product created during the second century CE.

Lots of folk are simply unlearned when it comes to much of the actual history of Christianity and some folk, even atheists, can at times show that trait conclusively.

That section is an editorial comment by the author of John it seems and not what Jesus said.But it does say that it is related to sin if you actually look at the whole passage and don't just quote mine.

quote:

---

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

​

19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

​

20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

​

21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

---

So it seems it is not just believing in something but rather behavior. And it also seems the belief does not refer to Jesus but rather to God.

Read what the stories say.I'm sorry if you need a rescuer.Good luck.

The only importance attached to the concept of Original Sin is its value as a marketing tool to persuade folk that they need to join the club. Beyond being an easy pathway into the gold mine income stream it is worthless.

The Garden of Eden story is only important as a "Just so" story for the people of that time. It explains why we fear snakes, why childbirth seems more painful for women than it seemed at the time for other animals, why we farmed instead of just being foragers, why we wear clothes and why we create a society of morality an immorality as oppose to an amoral society.Original sin does not enter into the story at all and is unneeded.

S0orry but that is not in the story and in fact the story says just the opposite. Until after they had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they were not capable of knowingly or willingly disobeying anyone.

The leg is that they did not have the capability to know that they should obey.It is what the story is about, not some Fall but the great gift of the Knowledge that there is right and wrong.They could not willfully or knowingly disobey God.

Of course there is a "should" element, although it is possible that there is not with the god you market.But that is why I don't worship that god or respect that god.The issue is that they did not have the capability to know that they should obey.You were the one that specified "willfully" and "knowingly" not I. Without the capability to know that they should choose one behavior over another they were incapable of doing wrong.