Importance of Original Sin

quote:

---

With a pretty atheistic stance on the bible and religion. So tell me, if not for "original sin" (as described in this thread and accepted by almost all other xians), why jesus? What was his primary reason for coming to earth? Where did the sin come from?

---

You sound like Jesus came from outer space. Basically, Jesus taught that people should repent and start behaving. Once one has repented and continues to behave, one is safe from God's wrath that was to come. Repentance was always an option.Paul makes very long arguments. One needs to read the whole thing to get a feel for what he's trying to argue and then check to make sure his argument is sound.Paul used Adam as an example of disobedience contrasted with Christ's obedience. It 's not uncommon for people to use fictional characters to make a point. It wasn't that Adam was a real person, it was what he represented: Disobedience. Do Jews Believe In Sin?Paul was a Jew. If you read enough of his writings, you will understand that he also felt people were responsible for their own actions.Why is Adam associated with disobedience when Eve was the first to bite? We have to remember that the word adam also means mankind.Both Jesus and Paul wanted people to behave at least civilly and ethically towards each other.As I said, the creation story is not essential to Judaism and it really isn't essential to Christianity unless one believes in the later doctrine of Original Sin. Accepting the creation stories as myths does not negate the teachings of Jesus.We've seen cases on this board where doctrines didn't hold up to what was actually written in the Bible.

quote:

---

What does the doctrine of original sin add that personal responsibility for one's own sins does not already cover?

---

It brought forth the need to baptize babies. IMO, the implication is that we cannot control ourselves without the help of Jesus. Unfortunately that is contrary to what God told Cain and what is presented in the OT.We do forget that religions are not immune to outside influence.The Original Sin Doctrine was influenced by Platonism according to this article: The Original View of Original SinSo it seems the idea came first and the use of Paul as support came considerably later. Apparently once the idea that sexual relations even in marriage were bad (not a Jewish concept). Their philosophy created a little bit of a problem when it came to Jesus, so they had to create another story to keep Jesus "clean". Immaculate ConceptionThen we get to the need for baptizing babies. Of course the babies that are baptized don't necessarily refrain from sinning.None of it changes the fact that humans have good inclinations and bad inclinations. We can go either way and we can change back and forth. We are still responsible for our actions.They just made the issue more complicated. I think it's a guy thing.

quote:

---

Not sure about that. Most churches that I've attended don't take baby baptizing seriously.

---

Humor, sorry. Catholics. I don't know how serious they take it.

quote:

---

Are you sure about this? Doesn't original sin mean that the need for salvation attached without any evil actions on your part. If it was instead about lack of control, wouldn't that undercut the need to baptize babies. Did anyone ever believe that babies acted better after being baptized?

---

Which means we don't have any control over getting rid of it either.Dualism-The physical is bad and the spiritual is good.

I didn't find the other thread when I searched either. I thought I remembered one. It was mostly played out anyway.

quote:

---

Ok, I can dig that. However, why do we sin in the first place? How were we able to sin? If we were created "in god's image", why is there evil? Or were we not created in god's image? Were we created with sin? If we were, then that means god has sin/evil.

---

IMO, it is questions like that that caused people to come up with stories to answer the question. There really isn't an answer to that question and you should know that. I'm not sure why you keep asking questions like that. If you've attempted to read any story in the OT where God displays temperament, you'll see he has the same emotions we do. He has both inclinations, just as we do.God does not have sin. Sin is an action, not something to have. The Jews break sin up into three types. Sins against God, sins against mankind, and sins against oneself.

quote:

---

Now, if you can say were weren't "created" and are a theistic evolutionist: why did god take so fucking long? Humanity has been around for a long damned time, but he waited until just 2000 years ago to send himself to save us from himself?

---

It is amazing how well you mush totally incorrect ideas together for one big mess and then expect an answer. If you really want to understand, really read the book.

quote:

---

Then I see no need for this jesus character. I don't need a third party to absolve me of my wrong doings. I can just say "damn, I screwed up. Lesson learned, better not do that again.". ya know, the way millions of people do every day that live just fine without religion or god.

---

Exactly! Jesus Was Not A Sacrifice To Forgive SinsThat's basically what God told the Israelites in the OT. Ezekiel 18:21-24 Jesus was a Jew who taught the lost among his people how to get back on track. Some people need help correcting destructive behavior, whether through counseling, religion, or meds.

quote:

---

His teachings? Perhaps not. But his necessity? I think so. Did he not come to "wash the world (that means EVERYONE, no?) of sin?

---

Nope. Again, do some research if you really are interested. Jesus was concerned with his own people, not everyone else on the planet. Not The PlanetSin is not a thing to be washed away. You just stop doing wrong behavior.

quote:

---

Perhaps I am coming at this a tad basic, but I see it this way: take someone who is a good person and has never heard of the bible. If we "choose" whether or not to do bad things ("sin"), why does this person need redemption or salvation? From what?

---

They don't. We ask for forgiveness from the person we wrong or suffer the consequences if we break the laws of the land. It's really the same for Christians, they just feel they have an added afterlife to prepare for.IMO, the doctrine of original sin was an unnecessary addition. That's what happens when people over think a simple story.

quote:

---

In establishing the teaching that all mankind is under condemnation for sin Paul quotes the Old Testament Psalms and prophets of Judaism:

---

The Jews break sin into three categories. Sins against God, sins against another person, and sins against oneself.The fact that people will "miss the mark" at least once in their life is not in question. Once a society has rules they are going to be trespassed at some point and people suffer the consequences.I disagree that Paul is saying that "all" mankind is under condemnation because we misbehave to varying degrees. He can only refer to the inhabited part he knows. Odds are it is an exaggeration anyway.The creation story is not the foundation of his argument. His argument would be the same whether he mentioned Adam later or not.Paul pulled various lines from hymns that suited his purpose. We can take line from the same hymns and support that there are righteous people and the songs are speaking of the wicked and not all of mankind. There are people who are considered righteous.Paul pointed out at the beginning of Chaper 3: We know that sin is not a thing that can actually control.In my opinion he is being rather dramatic to make the point that if Jews who have the Torah to follow are facing judgement, then those without the Torah are no better off. IOW, that is his way of getting the Gentiles on board.The creation story has no bearing on any of this. When people ask questions like: "Why do people misbehave, why do people hurt others, or why do elephants have long noses, etc...."; people come up with stories to answer those questions.From a Biblical standpoint, the doctrine of Original Sin isn't necessary. Good way to lay a guilt trip on people, but not really necessary for belief.

quote:

---

I have yet to see a meaningfulresponse to this opinion.

---

Whether the concept of original sin was a good idea or not isn't the topic. That's why you haven't gotten an answer.It is more about the importance of the A&E story as the basis for Christianity's need for salvation. From Message 1.

quote:

---

From my view, the whole idea of "the fall" is religious belief with no empirical evidence to support it. It is worthless and completely evil.

---

It is a religious belief. This is the Bible Study Forum, on the religious side of the board. In this thread people have given evidence that the idea of original sin isn't based in the Bible. It was a later development.

quote:

---

I would like to see some evidence for this "fall" which does not rely on religious belief. Is there any such?

​

If not, why should I accept it?

---

The thread is more about whether Christianity falls apart without the A&E story or not. It isn't about proving whether the "fall" actually happened.

quote:

---

The Bible does not teach that we are sinners because we sin. Rather it really teaches that we sin because we are sinners. We are constituted with a sinning nature.

---

You aren't really saying anything different than I am. Humans are capable of breaking the rules of civilization. Getting into why is more of a psychological discussion, not Bible Study.The A&E story tells the audience that people will go against the laws of the land if it suits their purpose. It also tells us that people suffer consequences for breaking the laws of the land.The main point of this thread though is that the A&E story isn't necessary to the Jewish religion. The story can be removed and it won't damage the religion. It isn't the foundation of the religion. Jar also commented that it wasn't necessary even for some sects of the Christian religion.IMO, the Paul's arguments do not depend on the A&E story either. We can remove the part with Adam in it and it wouldn't change Paul's point concerning sin. It may be in our nature to break the rules, but I don't see in the OT or the NT the idea that we don't have control over our "sinful" nature.Even in the story with Cain God said Cain didn't need to give into the "evil" nature.Paul's point also is that we are all responsible for our actions. Belief doesn't absolve responsibility.I showed in Message 25 that using Paul's writing as a proof text was done many many years after the fact. The idea of original sin wasn't developed by Paul or from Paul's writings.The Original Sin Doctrine was influenced by Platonism according to this article: The Original View of Original SinPaul stressed that we are saved by faith alone, but this faith is inseparable from following God's rules on how we are to live. Right behavior is still necessary. Sin intentionally and one still suffers consequences.Removing the A&E story or realizing that it is a myth, doesn't change Paul's teachings or the teachings of Jesus. It really wouldn't have a negative impact on the Christian religion overall. How it impacts individuals may be a different issue. People tend to have varying depths of belief concerning various parts of a religion. It depends on what one's foundation is built upon.How crucial is the A&E story to the Christian Religion? That is the question.

quote:

---

Establishing man as constitutionally unholy is, I think, vital. A proof of this comes from a myriad of world where man is told that if he tries hard enough, he can make himself right with God.

​

Someone convinced that their very constitution prevents them from ever meeting the standard will be forced to seek another solution. Salvation by (Christian-style) faith is the single alternative to various shades of working for your salvation.

---

We know the point of Paul's argument, but the creation story doesn't present mankind as constitutionally unholy.Paul could still make his argument by using the songs and prophets as he did. The creation story isn't vital to his argument. Even before Jesus there was Biblical criticism and Jews who understood that the creation stories were legends, not fact.Paul could have used any other disobedient person to contrast Christ.The concept wasn't passed down from Paul. The lack of a creation story doesn't negate the teachings of Jesus or Paul.

quote:

---

If sin a foundational issue, where else but to it's root do you go to illustrate it thus. So what a man crying out that he was "conceived in iniquity" if we don't know why that is so?

---

David was praying for forgiveness. Exaggerating one's level of unworthiness is not uncommon. It isn't necessarily a statement of fact.Paul makes use of all these things whether they are fact or not. I still don't think it changes Paul's teachings. I realize it does make a difference for those who feel sin is part of the foundation. I don't.

quote:

---

We were examining whether the A&E story is critical to Christian thinking. You can appreciate why it is: the good news is as good because it deals with bad news. The bad news is made as bad as it is because of mans very constitution.

---

Unfortunately believing in God or Jesus doesn't change man's constitution.That humans are capable of good and bad behavior is common among many of the creation stories. It's just observation put into a story. Even pagans could appreciate the comparison.Paul using Adam is a creative way to say that it has always been in our nature to sin. Without the creation story, Paul could still make the same argument. Not having Adam wouldn't change his argument, just his example.I agree the story is critical to some Christian thinking. As I said before, it depends on one's foundation. If one's foundation is based on the creation story, it is critical. If it isn't, not so critical. I don't believe it was critical to Paul in that his belief would have been affected.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Now if you saw all these things and the being that you saw do them told you not to eat the fruit of a specific tree, would you disobey that being?

---

You're adding to the story. You're adding the back story that suits you. It's easier to do that with fiction than with fact. I have no problem with that in a teaching setting, but that's not what this is.We always wonder why the scared girl always runs away from the crowd and to the empty room or basement because we know she will get killed. The reason is because that is the way the story is written.The storyteller made Adam's choice, not Adam. The story can be altered to suit the needs of the storyteller or audience, just like you're doing. The Redactor put the two stories together to suit his purpose.People have written stories that integrate the two stories together to suit their purpose.Paul took what Adam represented for his purpose.It is a shame that Christianity took a nice cultural story and made it totally about sin. We don't really need those types of stories anymore. They are nice for the kids, but they will outgrow them at some point.From what I've seen so far, the Christians that feel they have no control over their behavior seem to cling to the Creation story.Like I said, losing the story doesn't take away from the teachings of Jesus or Paul. It probably doesn't help the later doctrine created through reinterpretation. Creative License.

quote:

---

That there is some time difference between the encounter and the view formed is indicated by "when". That time difference could be a second or it could be a week. We cannot tell either way.

---

Some translations say when and some don't.If we read about the Fall of Man in the Legends of the Jews, we see Paul's presentation has more association with those stories than with what we have written in Genesis. This is where we see the idea of death being "brought in".From what I've read of some Jewish teachings today, they don't have a problem using Legends to teach. From looking at the NT, IMO, Jesus and Paul didn't have problems with using legends either.That mankind has the capacity to misbehave is a given. That we are not in control of our actions, is not a given. Jesus and Paul didn't present the idea that people were not able to behave.It is interesting when we look at other creation stories, which is what sparked this thread, the idea that there is good and bad seems to be in all the ones I've read; but the idea that mankind needs redemption from this condition does not show up in all of them. Not a universal thought. IMO, that's more of the story part and not the factual part.Marketing strategy: Create a need (real or imagined) and then fill it.

quote:

---

Yes, but of the translations in your link, none of them rules out a possible gap in time between Genesis 3:5, where the serpent does the talking, and Genesis 3:6, where Eve decides that the fruit is good to eat, and does so.

---

We can speculate the whys and what for, but really this tells us that the issue was not important to the story that we have in the Bible. The person who put the creation stories together had a reason for doing that and included in the stories the information necessary for his purpose. The Jewish Legends I linked to had more details.Storytellers adjust stories to fit what they need the audience to understand. In the parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus uses a priest, a Levite, and a Samaritan to make his point. Telling that parable to Native Americans wouldn't have had the same impact. They would have gotten the gist of the message, but the differences between the characters would have had no impact. A good storyteller would change the story and use characters that would make a similar impact on the Native American audience as it did the Jewish Audience.Whether Adam was there or not isn't important to the story we have in the Bible. Basically the story tells us why we know the difference between good and bad, why snakes don't have legs, why man works the ground, why we have thistles, why we don't live forever, etc.We can develop many lessons from the story just as we can any story. It doesn't have to be a religious writing. People over analyze a lot of literary works.Eve did what the story needed Eve to do.That's why I said, Paul's argument concerning sin doesn't need the creation story to be a factual event. Knowing that the story isn't a factual event doesn't undo Paul's argument concerning sin.Paul's argument concerning sin wasn't even the original basis for the Doctrine of Original sin. The church fathers reinterpreted the story to fit their needs thousands of years later.

quote:

---

I am still perplexed as to why Adam (or Eve) would be averted from their actions by the "threat" of death. If death isn't such a bad state of being then it isn't a deterrent unless God is willing to lie about it. And if it is a terrible state of being then we can only conclude that Adam and Eve are suffering these perpetual torments even as we speak.

---

Ten posts and you haven't really established your position concerning the debate.Do you consider the idea of original sin to be important to Christianity and why?
Do you consider the creation stories to be important to Christianity and why?This thread isn't about analyzing the creation stories.

quote:

---

Earlier you were suggesting (iirc) that a simple "it is in mans nature to sin" might suffice - but that doesn't counter the immediate defence of "well if it is my nature and God created me with this nature then it's God's fault that I sin".

---

But that isn't a good defense. That defense is used by those who don't want to take responsibility, IMO, or they just want to argue. Man's imagination at work.It seems to be in man's nature to blame others also. If one feels there is no God and man's nature is a product of however he evolved. Who do we blame then?Do we blame parents for having us or blame them for marrying the wrong person if we end up with an anomaly?One point of the story is that sin is in our nature. We just need to not dwell on the creative elements of the story or the creative elements used in arguments.Whether one believes God did it or we evolved this way, good and bad are in our nature.