A question for the believers

[U2girl]

What is the "original sin"?

Is it supposed to mean sex or not?

[nbcrusader]

Originally posted by U2girl
What is the "original sin"?

Is it supposed to mean sex or not?

The term "original sin" is a reference to the disobedience of Adam and Eve when they ate fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Theologically speaking, it is the idea that each one of us is sinful. This is summed up in Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

Through God's grace that comes from faith in Jesus Christ we are justified, or made right, in God's eyes.

[Angela Harlem]

I know it can't be taken literally, but does it mean we are all born sinful? Or we all become sinful during our lives?
I'd have to say surely we are born pure and innocent, but all the bad stuff comes later on...?

[nbcrusader]

I know there may be some disagreement on the subject, but it means that we are born sinful. Our natural desire is to do things that are contrary to God.

[melon]

Original sin was constructed by St. Augustine and his stoic Christian crew in the Middle Ages. They did believe we were all born evil, and that we were to live our life of all pleasure-deprvied and emotionless, because they believed all of that came from Satan. Hence why "stoic" is a term meaning precisely that--hardened and emotionless.

To be honest? I think that original sin is original bullshit.

Melon

[martha]

melon, you really need to be more direct. It's so hard to know what you're thinking.

[spanisheyes]

Originally posted by melon
Original sin was constructed by St. Augustine and his stoic Christian crew in the Middle Ages. They did believe we were all born evil, and that we were to live our life of all pleasure-deprvied and emotionless, because they believed all of that came from Satan. Hence why "stoic" is a term meaning precisely that--hardened and emotionless.

To be honest? I think that original sin is original bullshit.

Melon

Melon, I've always appreciated your forthrightness and knowledge of church history, but I do need to warn you about your position on original sin, and that it is not 'bullshit' as you have stated, but the reason why Christ died for you and I, and I've highlighted Romans 5:12 that states clearly where original sin came from and that it was not a concept that was proposed by St. Augustine...maybe the term 'original sin' was coined by Augustine, but not the fact and truth that original sin came from the first Adam, and that the second Adam, Jesus Christ, died to take away this original sin that every man and woman were born with. It is this same sin that if not confessed, every man and woman will have to give an account of to God. This is the Word of truth that comes from God, not any man.

Chris

6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

[Blacksword]

Well said Spanish eyes.

Perhaps the best way to put original sin is that each human is born selfish with that love which centres on the self. Augustine called this love cupidas. This love of self is directly opposed to caritas the love of those other than ourselves and the sort of love which comes from God. All sin is rooted in cupidas and it is the original sin. In many ways it could be called pride. Man puts himself first which is God's position. This is basical what the story of the Garden is about. Humanity tried to place itself equal to God. The battle of the two loves is the story of humanity and is the main focus of Augustine's City of God. His two cities (atleast to my understanding as I have yet to read the whole thing - though I have read a commentary or two) are not church and state but rather the one which calls its love cupidas and the other which calls its love caritas. No ne is either wholely a citizen of one city or another. It is only upon death that your citizenship is finalized, whereever your loyalty was strongest is the city to which you shall ever belong. THe City of God with God or the City of Earth separate from God. Each selfish act, decision, or thought serves to place one deeper in the City of Earth and further from God and our fellow humans. From the first our allegiance is the self, it is our nature. It is an alegiance which must be broken. Hence the ultimate step must be taken. That is why we must die through Christ, only then can we be free of cupidas and be totally clensed. Once the self willingly dies it can no longer be a slave to itself. When it is reborn it can only have caritas, the true love. Thus only in death can the self be truly free and saved.

Sorry for the little digression but I figured I couldn't discuss Augustine with out one I think any reader of Augustine or any classical writer will know exactly what I am talking about.

[nbcrusader]

Originally posted by melon
Original sin was constructed by St. Augustine and his stoic Christian crew in the Middle Ages. They did believe we were all born evil, and that we were to live our life of all pleasure-deprvied and emotionless, because they believed all of that came from Satan. Hence why "stoic" is a term meaning precisely that--hardened and emotionless.

To be honest? I think that original sin is original bullshit.

Melon

The application of original sin is extreme when combined with the ancient philosophy of stoicism, but original sin does not lead to a pleasure-deprived and emotionless life. Rather it demonstrates our absolute need for a Savior and the free gift that is grace.

[Blacksword]

All it's really saying is that there is something fundamentally wrong with the human race. 5000 years of human histroy should have shown that. HUmans are capable of both good and evil. We have a natural bent to do the selfish (aka sinful) thing. However it is also important to remember that though we have original sin we are still good, as is voiced in Genesis. It states very plainly that we are good. Augustine's theology is one made up of paradoxes. We are at once worthless and of infinite worth. Too often though the Church (this includes all of them) has put all the emphasis on the worthless side of the equation. ignoring that the fact that Christs sacrifice confirmed our worth, though only if we accept it.

[U2girl]

Originally posted by melon

To be honest? I think that original sin is original bullshit.

Melon

Thanks for the explanation everyone.

[sulawesigirl4]

I think a re-think of the "original sin" idea as laid out by Augustine is necessary. Where to go with it exactly, I am not sure, but I wonder how one can get around the full humanity of Christ and hold this view firmly. Was Christ human? Was he born with original sin? Or was he the example of the only human never to give in to sin as a choice? I tend to be toward the side of free will being truly "free", and therefore we actually are responsible for what we freely choose to do. Now I can see a natural propensity towards acting against God, but if the cards are already stacked and we don't have the choice, then how can he hold us responsible? Just a few things that I am thinking about at this point (amongst a whole bunch of others) I would tenatively say that more study needs to be done before we interpret the text as saying something they may not actually be saying.

[hippy]

Good questions, sula!

I would tend to agree with you. I believe that we are born without sin, but the mere fact that we are born means we live in the world with sin, which makes it impossible not to be tempted to sin. I think that the ability to sin knowingly comes with the faculty for thought about what is right and wrong. If we haven't yet developed that faculty, how can we sin? I don't think we can. That would mean we could sin without knowing that we were sinning. And, in my opinion, the Christian religion is about knowing that we are sinners and knowing that God has forgiven us. Anyway, just a few thoughts

edit: Sula, you say more study is necessary... would you like to do it while there at L'Abri?

[BVS]

I think it's important to define sin. To say one is born in sin, does not mean one is born evil. To me sin has always meant separation from God. We are all born separated from God. The choices we make in life after that depend on if we'll find the connection to God.

[nbcrusader]

Very interesting thoughts here. The one problem I have with the idea that sin is learned is that, when you continue along this line of thinking, it makes us "victims". It is a way for us to bargin with God over whether we should be held accountable; a way for us to set the standard for God's actions.

[hippy]

Originally posted by nbcrusader
Very interesting thoughts here. The one problem I have with the idea that sin is learned is that, when you continue along this line of thinking, it makes us "victims". It is a way for us to bargin with God over whether we should be held accountable; a way for us to set the standard for God's actions.

I was actually saying that I don't think sin is possible until we can comprehend right from wrong, otherwise, what's the point of knowing such things?

The way I understand it, we are born in the same state that Adam and Eve were: that is, a state of not being sinful... but once they ate the fruit (lived in the world, for us), they could comprehend what sin was, and therefore they could commit it.

[nbcrusader]

Originally posted by hippy
I was actually saying that I don't think sin is possible until we can comprehend right from wrong, otherwise, what's the point of knowing such things?

A question - who's standard of "comprehend" should we use? God's? Ours? A child's?

My own children who, doing something that they know is wrong, will reply "I didn't know".

It is a struggle to understand God without applying our own human notions of fair and just. God's ways are not our ways.

[sulawesigirl4]

that it is a tough question, i think we can all agree. but the implications seem to be pretty resounding through whatever theology one is going to adopt. which is probably why i shouldn't say too much at the moment, because i am in the building and formation stage. lol. But I am doing a pretty intense study on Hell at the moment, and the results have been very intriguing. Perhaps when I feel a bit more coherent I will start a thread on it.

In any case, God's ways may not be our ways but if he expects us to play by his rules, one would hope he would give us the chance to do so fairly.

nite all.

and yes...studying at l'abri...very intense but i can't recommend it enough, hippy.

[Ali Rose]

in response to sulas questions...and some others here...

personally i believe Jesus was a human. Son of Man, God on earth as a human. and yes, though tempted, he remained sinless.

We on the other hand, are bourne sinners. To say a human is sinless is blasphemous, almost as if you were to say a human (you or I) is God. We are separated from God on earth by sin. one of my favorite chapters in the entire bible states these things quite clearly.....

Romans 3:19-26

19Now 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. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Righteousness Through Faith

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[9] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.


(new international version)

just my $.02.

[melon]

Originally posted by spanisheyes
Melon, I've always appreciated your forthrightness and knowledge of church history, but I do need to warn you about your position on original sin, and that it is not 'bullshit' as you have stated, but the reason why Christ died for you and I, and I've highlighted Romans 5:12 that states clearly where original sin came from and that it was not a concept that was proposed by St. Augustine...maybe the term 'original sin' was coined by Augustine, but not the fact and truth that original sin came from the first Adam, and that the second Adam, Jesus Christ, died to take away this original sin that every man and woman were born with. It is this same sin that if not confessed, every man and woman will have to give an account of to God. This is the Word of truth that comes from God, not any man.

Well, since I'm not a creationist--and, thus, Adam is as much a figment of ancient Jewish imagination as Gilgamesh is in ancient Sumerian imagination--I don't buy the origins of it.

Secondly, if Jesus came to take away original sin 2000 years ago, then why are we still talking about it? It was taken away 2000 years ago.

To be frank, I can justify any of my behavior--good or bad--in the Bible. I can extract a passage in Joshua to support genocide. Does that mean that God supports genocide?

Also, there is a far cry between being imperfect ("sin" comes from the Hebrew word for "imperfection") and being born evil, which is precisely what original sin fosters.

I think original sin is a concept invented to foster guilt and shame--the point of the myth of Adam and Eve to begin with. A world where we are all "good" is a world without free will. Would we want that? It is my view that good and evil exist merely because that is the consequence of God's gift of free will. You cannot have one without the other, without creating some Orwellian nightmare of everyone being controlled like cattle.

Again, certainly we sin, but "original sin" is a concept that goes too far.

Melon