"Original Sin"....Just Another term for our animal nature?

[Joshua the Writer]

Oh, I like to add one good thing about the god in Christianity, and that is, that he does not exist. Because if he did, the evidence for that would no doubt be overwhelming. It seems a bit peculiar that a so called "almighty god" would be that good at hiding.

Where is he? Nowhere.

The thing is that you cannot either prove or disprove the existence of any deity or other spiritual entity.

 

[Greening]

The thing is that you cannot either prove or disprove the existence of any deity or other spiritual entity.

You can say that about anything, or anyone, you cannot see, hear, smell or touch. The difference between a so called monotheistic god, like the Xtian, and all other kinds of deities, is the claim that this being is supposed to literally be everywhere, have created anything and anyone, yet somehow have come out of who knows what himself and be "almighty" and, some say contradictory to the bible, that he should be good. Isaiah 45:7 - God Calls Cyrus

He does not exist. Of course not. He is a patriarch invented some thousands years ago. A perfect tool for the church people to keep the masses down.

And I do not discuss non-existing things.

 

[Joshua the Writer]

You can say that about anything, or anyone, you cannot see, hear, smell or touch. The difference between a so called monotheistic god, like the Xtian, and all other kinds of deities, is the claim that this being is supposed to literally be everywhere, have created anything and anyone, yet somehow have come out of who knows what himself and be "almighty" and, some say contradictory to the bible, that he should be good. Isaiah 45:7 - God Calls Cyrus

He does not exist. Of course not. He is a patriarch invented some thousands years ago. A perfect tool for the church people to keep the masses down.

And I do not discuss non-existing things.

Ah, I understand.

 

[Au Naturel]

No individual can atone for the innate characteristics of homo sapiens. We are what we are. We cannot change our nature. (**)

We can (and should) seek to overcome certain parts of our nature. This is what ordinary sins and atonement are about. The struggle is real and continuous, but if we genuinely work towards "goodness", we have the right to second chances.

The alternative is dark: if our nature is inherently bad, then our continued existence is intrinsically sinful.

@Au Naturel's interpretation (post #15) makes a lot more sense, and IMO matches the intent of the story in Genesis.

Human intelligence separates us from animals. But if we use our intelligence, we necessarily lose our innocence.
it wasn't an apple after all: if was something that gave us the knowledge of good and bad - the ability to assign moral values to actions and outcomes.

Leaving the Garden of Eden is about losing the benefits of innocence. The upside was gaining domination over the world. But the downside of that was the moral obligation to take responsibility for our actions.

IMO it's quite a good start for a religious text.

Sadly it's been corrupted by later "tactical" reinterpretations intended to serve the monopoly on doctrine that was already in place a few hundred years into the common era.

(**) There's one obvious alternative view of what I said at the start of the post.
I'm neither for nor against that interpretation - I wouldn't argue against it here.

Have you considered that God probably intended humans to eat that fruit when they got independent enough to disobey?

Take a child, put them in a room, and specifically tell them NOT to eat any cookies - as you point to a jar full of them. Then leave. What do you think will happen?

 

[Greening]

If someone is interested in reading an excellent book about polytheism vs. monotheism, I would recommend 'A Million and One Gods. The Persistence of Polytheism" by Page DuBois. A Million and One Gods — Harvard University Press

 

[Hypnalis]

Have you considered that God probably intended humans to eat that fruit when they got independent enough to disobey?

Take a child, put them in a room, and specifically tell them NOT to eat any cookies - as you point to a jar full of them. Then leave. What do you think will happen?

I've never considered Genesis to contain any literal truth, but I think it's a reasonable way of looking an interesting aspect of the material/objective universe from a spiritual perspective.

So I look only for a meaningful and useful spiritual message.

This makes the "temptation" part suspect to me. The rational "cause and effect" appears to be reversed.
Or the controlling entity was acting very badly.

Occam's Razor suggests the book was written by religious professionals who were very interested in achieving a high status in society, and being well paid for their "work". So they took a more logical story and wove in something so sell that ...
... making it worse as a "morality story", and recording one of the earlier examples of corrupt humans messing up a good moral principle to benefit themselves at everyone else's expense.

The problem with framing "the great temptation" that way is that it's an issue between a supposedly "good" controlling entity and the controlled entities (humanity). But such an issue make no sense - it's actually the usual relationship between the villain and the hero, with the snake as a minion.

If humanity must struggle against the moral difficulties inherent in our nature (the individual adult's moral choice between good and bad behavior), it makes no sense to set a trap that's sprung before our becoming able to make such a choice, and "punishes" by making us able to make that choice, and immediately casting us unprepared into a much harsher environment.

It's no wonder there's so little agreement on what it means

A "Temptation, (wrong) Choice, Fall, Redemption" arc makes for a good story, but it's sensitive to poor framing. And the only fun part is the redemption. It follows that the source and form of the temptation have to be chosen very carefully - I don't think that's done well in Genesis.

OT though - it makes a bit more sense if humanity in the Garden of Eden wasn't innocent, but was created with "Original Sin".

So you can make the story work much better at the cost of an controlling entity with questionable moral values

 

[Au Naturel]

I've never considered Genesis to contain any literal truth, but I think it's a reasonable way of looking an interesting aspect of the material/objective universe from a spiritual perspective.

So I look only for a meaningful and useful spiritual message.

This makes the "temptation" part suspect to me. The rational "cause and effect" appears to be reversed.
Or the controlling entity was acting very badly.

Occam's Razor suggests the book was written by religious professionals who were very interested in achieving a high status in society, and being well paid for their "work". So they took a more logical story and wove in something so sell that ...
... making it worse as a "morality story", and recording one of the earlier examples of corrupt humans messing up a good moral principle to benefit themselves at everyone else's expense.

The problem with framing "the great temptation" that way is that it's an issue between a supposedly "good" controlling entity and the controlled entities (humanity). But such an issue make no sense - it's actually the usual relationship between the villain and the hero, with the snake as a minion.

If humanity must struggle against the moral difficulties inherent in our nature (the individual adult's moral choice between good and bad behavior), it makes no sense to set a trap that's sprung before our becoming able to make such a choice, and "punishes" by making us able to make that choice, and immediately casting us unprepared into a much harsher environment.

It's no wonder there's so little agreement on what it means

A "Temptation, (wrong) Choice, Fall, Redemption" arc makes for a good story, but it's sensitive to poor framing. And the only fun part is the redemption. It follows that the source and form of the temptation have to be chosen very carefully - I don't think that's done well in Genesis.

OT though - it makes a bit more sense if humanity in the Garden of Eden wasn't innocent, but was created with "Original Sin".

So you can make the story work much better at the cost of an controlling entity with questionable moral values

I don't have the slightest faith that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Or the Koran or any of the many holy books of the many world religions. I just grew up immersed in the stuff: Sunday school, church, Billy Graham and televangelists, religious summer camp, and various Traveling Salvation Shows. Listening to Herbert W. Armstrong and the World Wide Chruch of God on the radio and reading their magazine, "The Plain Truth."

When I was older, I listened to "Religion on the Line" for many years and had more than a few long discussions with the rabbi. (My wife is Jewish.) I just didn't believe any of it. It was like studying Greek mythology, which was also fascinating but not to be taken literally.

Every definition of sin I have heard implies a voluntary choice. (We'll skip the debate over whether free will even exists.) If one has no knowledge of good and evil, one cannot sin any more than a fish could.

Telling Adam and Eve not to eat from that tree is like telling a dog to stay when it has never been trained. The first couple doesn't know that disobedience is evil. I've seen parents do that to children and get angry when it doesn't work.

To bring it back to the purpose of the forum, the autistic child often does not understand the complicated social rules that NTs pick up through osmosis. They are Adam and Eve being punished for doing something they did not understand was "wrong" at the time.

 

[Magna]

Telling Adam and Eve not to eat from that tree is like telling a dog to stay when it has never been trained. The first couple doesn't know that disobedience is evil. I've seen parents do that to children and get angry when it doesn't work.

^ I've thought about this very thing: It certainly does seem like God set up Adam & Eve.

 

[tree]

5 Old Testament Reasons Why “Original Sin” Doesn’t Work

The idea of "original sin" makes many people uncomfortable: "Why am I responsible for what Adam did in the garden?" By the way, is that even in the Bible?

thebiblefornormalpeople.com

 

[Magna]

5 Old Testament Reasons Why “Original Sin” Doesn’t Work

The idea of "original sin" makes many people uncomfortable: "Why am I responsible for what Adam did in the garden?" By the way, is that even in the Bible?

thebiblefornormalpeople.com

^ Thank you for linking this, I found it interesting and I agree with the information. It also supports my original post in this thread that since "Original Sin" doesn't work for many reasons cited in the link, it points strongly that "Original Sin" is a concept, a scapegoat for our animal nature and an attempt to disassociate humans from other Great Ape primates as being separate from them, which is not the case. With this in mind, I'd be curious to how many people random people in society would answer incorrectly that humans are not related to the other Great Apes or even further, answer that humans aren't animals at all.

 

[v4169sgr]

There's some valuable perspectives being put forwards here. I'd gently suggest that this thread could be improved in a few simple ways:

Less of the "I" and "you" - let's try our best to take the personal out;
Loving respect for each person contributing, however much we disagree with what they said;
Becoming less attached to our personal perspective, and say "let us examine this matter here before us".

This way, each of us will be able to contribute without fear of feeling threatened, and each of us can be presented with a learning opportunity.

We can consult, not argue, and learn together

 

[v4169sgr]

Here's a contribution to put on the table:

Another way of thinking of the story of Adam and Eve is as a metaphor for the growing awareness - over a long passage of time - of the self.

As Ernest Becker has written:

"It is this neuro-chemical program that keeps animals “walking behind their noses,” while shutting everything else out. Humanity, however, is that “impossible creature” lacking instinct and thus exposed to the overwhelming immensity of reality"

Awareness of self implies awareness in turn of agency, and the horrendous weight of responsibility that implies - the choice of actions that can heal or harm.

No longer cloaked in the garb of innocence, the human is 'cast out' from the metaphorical garden, and has to fend for itself.

Remember that for our concrete and literal thinking ancestors, the fable was the only way in which metaphorical concepts could be transmitted through generations.

 

[Hypnalis]

"Original Sin" is a concept, a scapegoat for our animal nature

You opened with this, so of course you should defend it - but I think you're mistaken.

Two counter arguments:
* Neither the "Old Testament" nor the New oppose the idea that humanity has a partly animal nature. It's been a long time for me, but IIRC the difference was expressed as humanity also having a part derived from god. And certain animal behaviors are actively approved of (e.g. procreation) provided the rules are followed (marriage).
Making our animal nature a sin would be inconsistent.
* It's supposed to be possible to remove Original Sin by acting correctly and performing certain rituals (not all varieties of Christianity, but the majority). This couldn't be possible with our animal nature. We can work on overcome its disadvantages (IMO a better source for ongoing temptation than that snake/tree story), but not excise it.

 

[Southern_Gentleman]

Original sin is a manmade term. God created man and woman with a free will to choose to obey or disobey His precepts, to do good or evil. Because of Adam and Eve’s choice, that sin nature has been passed down from generation to generation.

The fact of original sin means that we cannot please God on our own. No matter how many “good deeds” we do, we still commit sin, and we still have the problem of a corrupt nature within. We must have Christ; we must be born again (John 3:3). God deals with the effects of original sin in our hearts through the process of sanctification.

 

[Joshua the Writer]

There's some valuable perspectives being put forwards here. I'd gently suggest that this thread could be improved in a few simple ways:

Less of the "I" and "you" - let's try our best to take the personal out;
Loving respect for each person contributing, however much we disagree with what they said;
Becoming less attached to our personal perspective, and say "let us examine this matter here before us".

This way, each of us will be able to contribute without fear of feeling threatened, and each of us can be presented with a learning opportunity.

We can consult, not argue, and learn together

The thing is this is a matter of varying perspectives so you can't take "I" and "you" out of it. I'm interested in hearing others' perspectives and comment on them. In turn, I give my perspective. Not necessarily a debate or argument.

 

[v4169sgr]

The thing is this is a matter of varying perspectives so you can't take "I" and "you" out of it. I'm interested in hearing others' perspectives and comment on them. In turn, I give my perspective. Not necessarily a debate or argument.

Thanks Joshua - appreciate the perspective

Absolutely we cannot take the literal 'I' and 'you' out for so long as there are separately and rigidly defined concepts of self defined in the contemporary culture we all swim in.

However, what we can do is act over time to reduce the 'ownership' of the ideas we submit, so that we become less 'attached' to them.

Hence by way of illustration I offer a perspective on the matter of original sin. This perspective is placed on the table, so that we can all see it. The moment it is put on the table, it ceases to be 'mine' - it is 'ours', the groups' .

Therefore, I feel less inclined emotionally to 'defend' it because I don't feel 'attacked' when a seemingly contrary opinion is put forwards.

That way, both you and I can offer perspectives and (relatively) dispassionately examine them in consultation to arrive at a better - even if interim - conclusion

 

[v4169sgr]

Original sin is a manmade term. God created man and woman with a free will to choose to obey or disobey His precepts, to do good or evil. Because of Adam and Eve’s choice, that sin nature has been passed down from generation to generation.

The fact of original sin means that we cannot please God on our own. No matter how many “good deeds” we do, we still commit sin, and we still have the problem of a corrupt nature within. We must have Christ; we must be born again (John 3:3). God deals with the effects of original sin in our hearts through the process of sanctification.

Yes, we must be 'born again' in the teachings of the Light of the World, and at the same time must continue to exert effort on a daily basis to overcome our disadvantages.

I don't see any contradiction in both your perspectives. I respect and admire both.

We need both the exertion and discipline and the openness to the original teachings of the messengers of the Divine in order to transform both ourselves and the world around us.

This does not and should not imply any kind of overhanging 'guilt'; it is simply a reflection on our lower, debased, nature, that we became aware of as retold metaphorically by the story of Adam and Eve.

 

[chincey_james]

Just thought I would share a different take on this being from a Buddhist background.

In Buddhism, there is no concept of original sin. Instead, actions are either considered skillful (bringing contentment) or unskillful (bringing stress), and we have both tendencies in our nature.

The "evil" we experience in this world instead is actually caused by the three poisons: hatred, greed, and ignorance. While we are inclined to hatred, greed, and ignorance, we also have the opposite inclinations in us. We are capable of great, unselfish love and kindness.

Original sin doesn't make sense to me. If an omnipotent and omniscient creator exists as is described in the Bible, then only that creator could be ultimately responsible for first creating the concept of sin and then second for allowing humans to be able to fall victim to it. And if the devil created sin, then the devil would have equal creative powers to God.

A quote is attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

 

[v4169sgr]

Just thought I would share a different take on this being from a Buddhist background.

I'm not sure I see a difference

Epicurus' problem of evil is addressed through our natures and the world being a learning exercise - a metaphorical classroom, as it were.

A focus on our higher 'spiritual' natures results in actions that are 'skillful'; actions that are 'unskillful' arise from paying attention to our lower 'animal' selves.

The teachings and example of the messengers - whether they be Christ or the Buddha - enable us to re-discover who we are, and in the process become 'born again': we become aware of our capacity for great, unselfish love and kindness.

This correspondence is an indication for us that doctrines such as original sin and salvation by faith alone are human misunderstandings and later additions, and do not arise from the founders or messengers.

 

[Au Naturel]

"It is this neuro-chemical program that keeps animals “walking behind their noses,” while shutting everything else out. Humanity, however, is that “impossible creature” lacking instinct and thus exposed to the overwhelming immensity of reality"

Becker is massively wrong. Humans are trapped by instincts in a technological age where many of those instincts are counterproductive. Those instincts (that people have in varying degrees - Bell curve distribution) are our "animal nature."

We build great edifaces to justify what is really a drive hardwired into our heads to try to separate outselves from "animals." That's an ego thing for individuals and a control thing for churces and ideologies.