DBrant

Hello, gang

Let me first say that I'm very impressed with the enormous wealth of content and insights in these forums. I've been browsing them for the past few days, and I still feel like I've only scratched the surface.

I'm originally from the former Soviet Union; my family and I immigrated to the U.S. in 1991, just before the USSR fell. I was immediately struck by the religiosity of the American people. The first time I saw a televangelist show on TV, I thought it was some sort of joke. In any case, finding websites like this one is an affirmation that rational minds still exist. (btw, that's not to say I dislike life in America one bit )

My question today concerns the Christian idea of original sin. (and I hope you'll forgive me if this has already been discussed ad nauseum in previous posts which I haven't read yet)

The "original sin" concept amounts to the story that Eve, and then Adam, ate from the tree of knowledge, despite God's order not to do so, thereby cursing all subsequent generations of humans.

But where exactly was the "sin" in that? Before the humans ate from the tree of knowledge, they couldn't tell right from wrong, correct? So how could they have known that it was "wrong" to disobey God's command? Doesn't God's punishment, in this light, seem a little ex post facto?

So the question is, how was the Original Sin a "sin" at all, if Adam and Eve didn't realize they were sinning?!

Marduk

the whole 'original sin' stuff is Christian, not intended by the Jewish authors of the OT. St. Augustine, I believe, is the mastermind of this concept, centuries after Jesus time. Sin itself is disobeying God.

"oh there's no such thing as an original sin"
Elvis Costello

DBrant

Doesn't 'sin' mean disobeying God consciously? Before they ate from the tree, the humans had no sense of right and wrong, so they couldn't know what "obey" or "disobey" even meant. So even if God said, "don't eat from that tree," to the humans it would have sounded no different than "gobble-gobble-google-goo."

And, especially if God endowed the humans with "free will," what exactly did he expect would happen?

Boro Nut

No sorry. I've tried them all. I'm completely out of ideas. Have you tried the Mormons?

Boro Nut

Jimmy Higgins

The tree of knowledge of good and evil isn't a tree of knowledge of morality, but rather a substantial amount of information. If the tree was the knowledge of morality, then they should have felt shame for eating the fruit, but they don't. They are ashamed that they are naked, symbolic of the shame of themselves.

The fact that God wants to boot man out of the garden because man has ~"become like they were", not because they ate the fruit, is surely symbolic that the tree represented all knowledge because knowing of morality does not make you god-like, knowing all things does!
Actually the better issue here is that God offers death as the punishment. But what was death in Paradise? Creationists like to say that plants died, but plants weren't really regarded as life. The trees were, but not the plants.
Creationists say it was a test. I disagree. Obedience could have been judged by man's taking care of the Garden.

It was the original sin as in the first, but there is no original sin.

Dominus Paradoxum

"Original sin" is nowhere to be found in the bible, and Paul only makes a passing reference to something like it. It was basically invented by Augustine in the fourth century. Most of the Eastern Orthodox churches don't believe in original sin. That's why they reject the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception. If there is no such thing as original sin, then Mary can't have been concieved "free" of it, as opposed to other people.

DBrant

Well then I'm simply talking about the fact that God punished the humans for sinning before they were even aware of the sin concept. (not to mention the inadvertent punishment of all subsequent generations of humans)

But hold on now... it says that the humans 'weren't ashamed' of being naked before they ate from the tree. Isn't that an element of morality?

It seems to me that, precisely because of their lack of knowledge of morality, the humans were able to believe a serpent more than they believed god.

Jimmy Higgins

Not really. It is symbolic of the act. They were literally ashamed of themselves for breaking the rule. They literally try to hide their shame by clothing themselves.
But did the serpent lie? They did not die after eating the fruit that God said was poisoned.

sakrilege

It wasn't Ernest Angley, was it?

I also wonder how Noah's flood can be justified since there weren't any laws written yet, no 10 commandments, no Leviticus. How would anyone know what was right or wrong?

Vinnie

For my treatment of original sin go here

Taking the garden story literally in a facutal-historical manner produces nothing but nonsense.

Vinnie