Awmte

The concept of redemption/salvation is based on the validity of Original Sin. Without this, the whole edifice crumbles, for if we have not "Fallen" we do not need to be redeemed, and therefore, do not need a "redeemer".
Thus, the sinfulness of man is a necessary condition of Christianity.
Let us, however, examine the concept of Original Sin from a moral viewpoint.
Let us grant that the book of Genesis is factually perfect (ignoring all the problems of logic, science and even internal consistency). Let us grant that the Fall happened exactly as portrayed. The issue in question is this - was the fall morally justified?
Let us review the sequence of events. Satan (or the serpent) tempted Eve to eat of the tree of Good and Evil. Eve succumbed, and furthermore, tempted Adam into the same sin, thus resulting in the "Fall".
The question I wish to pose is: Exactly where in this sequence of events did this putative sin occur?
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently, could not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
Sin presupposes an ability to distingiush between good and evil, and a volitional, volitional act of evil. Any act is morally neutral without this foundation: they could have sinned only after they had eaten of the fruit.
Thus, we have two mutually exclusive scenarios: Either they could sin before they ate of the fruit (by disobeying God's command) and did not, therefore, need to eat of the tree, or they could not have sinned before they ate of the tree and consequently did not sin.
Note that they were summarily expelled form the garden before they had committed any other sin.
We conclude that there is no moral justification for Original Sin and that any morality based upon it is, therefore, fundamentally flawed. Man does not need to be redeemed, just freed from the clutches of his irrational guilt. Whose sin did Christ die for?

PoodleLovinPessimist

That's the most enlightened possible metaphorical interpretation of Christ's "sacrifice". He is propitiating, not Yahweh's (imagined) perverted morality, but man's own existential guilt; freeing us from the burden of our own immoral past.

Of course, such an interpretation is not going to put money in the pockets of many priests, so I don't expect it to get much currency.

mikey1987

good good - but the morality comes in when you think of this:

Why does Yahweh punish innocent humans by putting the burden of original sin on them? Isn't that punishing others for the sin of two? Why does he take out anger on people that never hurt me.

whoever wrote these stories never bothered to plot them out on a fow chart :rolling:

chokmah

Just for clarification, mikey, there is no "original sin" in Judaism. This is a concoction of Christianity alone.

There is always the choice to do good or bad, and each person is accountable for their own actions. That is a basic premise to Judaism; not what is described above.

Regards,

chokmah

Crowley

I do not remember the words Original Sin being used in the bible anywhere. Nor do I recall the NT specifically stating that we are of a sinful nature and condemned because of Adam and Eve's actions, but I could be mistaken.

So, is the concept of Original Sin strictly laid out in the bible or is just interpretational jargon created by early Christian priests?

ManM

It's like a kid learning about a stove. The parent warns the kid that the stove is hot, and if they touch it, they will be burned. The kid touches the stove and gets burned. The parent scolds the kid for not listening, perhaps grounding the kid or taking away a toy, and then tries to heal the wound that was a consequence of the disobedience.

God warned Adam that he will surely die if he ate from the tree. Adam ate from the tree and human nature became subject to death. The children of Adam and Eve were mortal because Adam and Eve had become mortal. There is no inherited guilt, but rather an inherited mortality. Jesus died in order to conquer death. With Christ's triumph, we expect the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come.

chokmah

"Original Sin" in the classic sense includes more than mortality. Maybe the view you're expressing is of a particular denomination.

The interesting part of bringing in the Messiah (or Jesus in your case) is the fact that this was never an aspect of what Messiah was to achieve (at least from a Judaic perspective). The resurrection of the dead stands as a Jewish held belief (at least in the majority) without regard for the concept of "original sin".

ManM

The "Original Sin" you have in mind was first introduced by Augustine and later found its way through the Latin Church. The Greek Church at the time held the view of "Ancestral Sin" that I've put forth.

chokmah

Got'cha. :thumbs:

rosy tetra

Paul talked about it a lot in Romans. For example, (from the NIV version),
Paul goes on to compare the time in history before Moses (before the law, when people died but didn’t know the commandments they were breaking) to the time after Moses (when people knew the law, but were still unable to keep the law because of their sin nature). Then, his summary of the situation…
I guess they were supposed to make a distinction between the words of the creator and the words of the snake. But it still seems like they would not have been able to decide that words of creator = Good, words of snake = Evil, or even that trusting your creator = Good, betraying the trust of your creator = Evil. It appears to me that Adam and Eve would have been unable to make this kind of moral judgment, but nevertheless they had to be banished from Eden because of their choice for the snake.