The Original Sin

[SirJosephPorter]

Sin#1 tree of knowledge, eviction from heaven before we got to sin #2 tree of life (immortality). The gods were capitalists and hated the thought of competition.

And God didn't think much of equal rights either. There was Lilith, the predecessor of Eve. She had Feminist ideas, she had ideas about equality. She was a wicked woman. God killed her off and replaced her by Eve (at least according to some legends, there are many legends of Lilith).

femina: Lilith: Adam's first wife

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yes that bit of history has been employed by the various god merchants with,great success. However the story itself has more to do with the outcomes of ancient genetic science and the source of those genes.

I assume you are referring to the Garden of Eden story. I like the interpretation that Asimov put on it (in his book about the Bible).

According to Asimov, the story describes the transition of human society from hunting gathering to farming society.

In the Garden of Eden before the fall, Adam and Eve were free to roam and eat the fruits of the trees (except the tree of knowledge, of course). That represents hunting gathering society. After the fall, Adam becomes tiller of the soil, he became a farmer. He was also given the dominion over plants, animals, nature etc. (and of course over the woman), so that he may clear up the land for farming.

The interpretation makes sense to me.

 

[L Gilbert]

I'm not quite sure what the original sin is, so I have to take you people's word on it, but I'd say it is absolutely impossible for humans not to sin at some point or other (at least in the Christian, Muslim, and Judaic sense if not most other religions'), whether it be a little white lie to protect someone's feelings or killing someone for the "fun" of it. IOW, you are doomed right off the bat. Fortunately, there are some philosophies that accept that humans are only humans, such as Taoism and Buddhism, and that's all we can be. We can strive for "perfection" but we'll never achieve it and that's just fine.

 

[MHz]

If not for original sin, we would not baptise infants. We would wait until they were old enough to understand what it means to join the church. But, because we don't want them to die in a state of sin (original sin is a state, not an act), we baptise them.

Grave covers the innocent, the Bible says life begins at conception so even the ones who didn't survive to draw breath are also listed in the book of life.

Satan's sin was the original sin, he lied, that lie caused death that made him a murderer, Adam's sin was eating the fruit, something his love for Eve (one-flesh) compelled him to do (rather than becoming like gods being the motive).

Eve was tricked into eating the forbidden fruit, even if she could have been forgiven Adam had to pay the price and that meant Eve would also.

 

[Spade]

Fables for adults? Sin is a social construct. If man were a solitary animal there could be no sin.

 

[Bar Sinister]

The idea of original sin is really quite simple. It is a control mechanism. Convince believers that they are born tainted and that they need the guidance of the almighty church in order to receive salvation. To argue with this concept is to condemn oneself to eternal damnation. Once followers have accepted this distorted concept it is a simple matter to get them to accept all sorts of other illogical nonsense.

 

[selin]

there is not original sin, infants are innocent and sinless when they were born, but the judgement of good and bad is developed enough when the years pass ,the one has the right to choose the bad and then the sin begans to show itself, there are no seeds of sin but less wisedom , intelligence and bad conditions into which the one grows up.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The idea of original sin is really quite simple. It is a control mechanism. Convince believers that they are born tainted and that they need the guidance of the almighty church in order to receive salvation. To argue with this concept is to condemn oneself to eternal damnation. Once followers have accepted this distorted concept it is a simple matter to get them to accept all sorts of other illogical nonsense.

That is how most religions keep their followers in line, by fear and by promise of rewards in the afterlife (some of them promise rich rewards in this very life).

 

[Cliffy]

there is not original sin, infants are innocent and sinless when they were born, but the judgement of good and bad is developed enough when the years pass ,the one has the right to choose the bad and then the sin begans to show itself, there are no seeds of sin but less wisedom , intelligence and bad conditions into which the one grows up.

I am with you on this: babies are born pure and innocent, free of judgment. They are angelic beings who we corrupt with all kinds of nonsense about good and evil. If we are angelic beings at birth we can learn to grow beyond our social conditioning and return to our original state. But it is not easy to be sane when you live in the asylum.

 

[L Gilbert]

The idea of original sin is really quite simple. It is a control mechanism. Convince believers that they are born tainted and that they need the guidance of the almighty church in order to receive salvation. To argue with this concept is to condemn oneself to eternal damnation. Once followers have accepted this distorted concept it is a simple matter to get them to accept all sorts of other illogical nonsense.

Yeah, but religion gives some people something to do. You'd rather have the Pope making brakes for Toyota? lol

 

[AnnaG]

lol Good point, Les.
Seriously, perhaps the original sin was the dominance of men over women just because of size and strength. Those are pretty poor traits to be judging goodness by. Unfortunately, even today some people haven't gotten past it.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Yeah, but religion gives some people something to do. You'd rather have the Pope making brakes for Toyota? lol

Actually I would like all religious types to do something more than live off the donations of believers. And I am not talking about the schools and hospitals founded by the various religious institutions as they serve a useful function. I am referring to freeloaders like the Dalai Lama and the Pope and charlatans like Pat Robertson etc. who live off the donations of others while spouting holy wisdom but making no real contribution to society.

 

[Downhome_Woman]

Original sin is something religious Patriarchs dreamed up to have power over the masses. The doctrine of original sin is truly horrible, we are all judged guilty even before the birth, without a trial.

The only way to escape the punishment is of course, to follow the religion laid down by the Patriarchs.

There is no place for original sin in Atheism or Darwinism. According to Darwinism (and most Atheists would agree with this) we are born with two instincts hard wired into us, the instinct of self survival and the instinct of survival of the species (which at times can be stronger than the instinct of self survival). All of our actions can be explained with reference to these instincts.

Original sin is simply recognition of the dual nature of man - a capacity for good, and a capacity for evil.

Spade, you may call that original sin if you wish, but isn’t that also explained by the two instincts hard wired into us?

"The doctrine of original sin is truly horrible, we are all
judged guilty even before the birth, without a trial." and yet you so revere the Hindu religion ... very confusing, considering the Hindu doctrine of re-incarnation --one commits as sin in ones present life, one 'pays' for that sin in a future life ...

 

[countryboy]

Actually I would like all religious types to do something more than live off the donations of believers. And I am not talking about the schools and hospitals founded by the various religious institutions as they serve a useful function. I am referring to freeloaders like the Dalai Lama and the Pope and charlatans like Pat Robertson etc. who live off the donations of others while spouting holy wisdom but making no real contribution to society.

That's a fairly intrusive statement. If people want to contribute to a religion, I would say that is their business, not yours or mine. Your definition of a "real contribution to society" may be different than others. Don't you believe in individual freedoms, including those that pertain to religion? Even our Charter of Rights and Freedoms covers that.

 

[Downhome_Woman]

Can someone explain me the notion of Original Sin? I simply don't understand it.

This question is primarily focused on the Christian notion of original sin. But any type of opinion and contribution is welcome, be it from a atheist, Christian or any other point of view.

Please stick to the subject though...

What a doofus I am! Here you are, asking 'what' the notion of original sin is. Heck - all anybody had to do was post what the Catholic Church had to say about it - which is,"
Original sin - an essential truth of the faith

388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story's ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.261 We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to "convict the world concerning sin",262 by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.
Now - do I agree with this? not a hope in hell, but that's not what you asked, is it? The Catholic Church that has decided to 'decide' on this original sin business is the one who should provide you with the technical answer to your question. All of us others? We're merely opinions!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"The doctrine of original sin is truly horrible, we are all
judged guilty even before the birth, without a trial." and yet you so revere the Hindu religion ... very confusing, considering the Hindu doctrine of re-incarnation --one commits as sin in ones present life, one 'pays' for that sin in a future life ...

Hindu religion does not have the concept of original sin, DHM. It does not say that we are all sinners because our ancestors sinned 5000 years ago.

Hinduism says that we are individually responsible for our own salvation. It says that if someone is poor, suffering in this life, the reason for it is that he committed horrible sins in previous life.

And I don’t agree with this aspect of Hinduism. There is really only one aspect of Hinduism that I like, that is its tolerance towards other religions. Hinduism says that there may be more than one path to salvation, and this may include other religions.

That is why Hindus have fought very few wars in the name of religion, unlike Muslims and Christians. They have fought wars for other reasons, but not in the name of religion.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That's a fairly intrusive statement. If people want to contribute to a religion, I would say that is their business, not yours or mine. Your definition of a "real contribution to society" may be different than others. Don't you believe in individual freedoms, including those that pertain to religion? Even our Charter of Rights and Freedoms covers that.

I don’t have a problem with that. I do, however, have a problem with religious Fundamentalists trying to impose their narrow worldview on the rest of the society. Like when they fight to deny equal rights to gays, equal rights to women, when they try to impose their account of creation in public schools etc.

 

[darkbeaver]

I don’t have a problem with that. I do, however, have a problem with religious Fundamentalists trying to impose their narrow worldview on the rest of the society. Like when they fight to deny equal rights to gays, equal rights to women, when they try to impose their account of creation in public schools etc.

If you think for a moment you may come to understand that very few of us can escape being religious fundamentalists. Rather than the narrow common meanings of those two words we can with ease expand to cover you or me. You are of course a religious economic and political fundamentalists which is literally no less a suspect philosophy than the lowest christian practices. There are none so narrow and imposing than capitalists, yet they are accepted with open arms into the schools and places of worship with their own unique power creation stories no less mistaken than the most ignorant among the Godwhacks. I am almost as guilty.:smile:

 

[AnnaG]

Actually I would like all religious types to do something more than live off the donations of believers. And I am not talking about the schools and hospitals founded by the various religious institutions as they serve a useful function. I am referring to freeloaders like the Dalai Lama and the Pope and charlatans like Pat Robertson etc. who live off the donations of others while spouting holy wisdom but making no real contribution to society.

Well, I do think these people need to pay income taxes and whatnot, but it isn't as if the public supports them, it's only private citizens and the odd business that does that. After all, the key word is "donation". And a lot of people seem to feel the need for guidance from a fatherly (or the occasional motherly) figure.
I don't mind that nearly as much as I mind being forced to spend thousands and thousands for insurance I've never needed.

 

[AnnaG]

lol So the original sin was just that Adam sinned against some god and stole an apple. That's definitely worth sentencing the guy to an eternity in misery and making an entire species suffer preventable disasters and stuff.
This Christian god is sure not very nice. And by the sounds of it, neither is the Islamic one.