[Lucky Strike]

How do religious folks, Christian and non-Christian, feel about the notion of original sin? I, for one, do not buy it. I will briefly sketch a history of the concept, and point out why I do not think it is a dogma* in which one should be inclined to believe. Rebuttals are welcome and encouraged.

There are a few different places, inside and outside the Bible, where original sin comes up. The person who popularized the dogma was Augustine, who argued that it was passed on from human to human, via sexual conception, from Adam and Eve onto all of humanity. This I reject because it is merely the speculation of one man, learned though he may have been. As it does not come from God or Christ, I do not see how it carries any weight.

A better source of the notion can be found in a Biblical source. In this case, the author of the dogma is Paul. He says:

1 Corinthians 15:22
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Romans 5:12-21
12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that 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 them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

Paul's status as Apostle lends credence to his thought. However, nowhere in the synoptic Gospels, nor in the Gospel of John, does Christ mention anything about original or inherited sin. Furthermore, the idea does not arise in the Tanakh ('Old Testament'). If original sin existed and was important to Christianity, I find it hard to believe that Christ would have made no mention of it whatsoever. Venerated though Paul may be, he is a man and as capable of error as anyone else.

Thus I find no good reasons to believe in the doctrine of original sin. If we accept this doctrine, we have to come up with answers of what happens to otherwise 'innocent' people who were born before the time of Christ or who died before being baptized. Answers to these problems exist, but it seems simpler to acknowledge that it would not be God's will that all of man would be tainted with sin by birth simply because of the failings of Adam. Rather, God endowed man with reason and will so that man could know right from wrong, and so that man could know and do God's will.


*I do not mean to use dogma in the pejorative sense; by dogma I merely mean an article of faith in an organized religion.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

What? Why do you think Jesus was sent down to die for our sins?

[Todd D.]

First of all, you're falling in to the trap of "Paul said it, but it's not in the Gospels so it's not true". In Christianity, the Pauline Epistles are canon, they are part of the Bible, they are sacred and infallible. You can't say "Well, Paul was only a man", because while that's true, he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to author the epistles, and they are therefore without error. You simply can't accept the Gospels as canon while rejecting the Pauline Epistles.

Be that as it may, there are plenty of references to mankind, on the whole, having a sinful nature (which is what "Original Sin" is, the inheritance of our sinful nature from the first sinners: Adam and Eve) in the Gospels:
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him? - Luke 11:13

I don't see how one can look at themselves in the mirror and say that Original Sin doesn't exist. As stated, Original Sin is the idea that we are fallen beings, and have a sinful nature. How can that be denied? Have you EVER messed up? Ever? Can anyone honestly say that they have known someone that has led an absolutely PERFECT life? Not "The good outweighed the bad", I mean absolutely perfect? If not, then you must concede that the doctrine of Original Sin is at least consistent with the human condition. As Paul states, "For ALL have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God".

[Dave]

I have never made a mistake or been wrong about anything in my entire life. Looks like you've been proven wrong, Todd.

[Lucky Strike]

Centuries of Christian dogma toppled in one swift Dave post. More at 11.

[Oxymoron]

Tree of life equals reproduction, when men no longer needed god to make life.

[QatzelOk]

Original sin is gullibility.

[Nattering Nabob]

Todd D. is correct...original sin is another way of saying "sin is universal" i.e everybody has sinned and no one has not sinned.

And trolling is a sin.

[Aekos]

You simply can't accept the Gospels as canon while rejecting the Pauline Epistles.

What's Christianity now, Star Wars? The whole notion of which gospels are canon or not completely depend on the decisions of the early church fathers (men).

In the Book of Thomas, for example, we see the opposite view that knowledge is not evil.

[Todd D.]

The whole notion of which gospels are canon or not completely depend on the decisions of the early church fathers (men).

Well, the Pauline epistles are not "gospels", but that's largely irrelevant. They are still canon. Yes, it was based on the decisions of men, but it was men given their authority by Jesus, who is God, and who were guided by the Holy Spirit.

More to the point though, the question was originally posed as where in the Bible do we find original sin, and then rejected the Pauline epistles as not being gospels. It's true that they are not gospels, but they are canonical scripture, and as such they are free from error.

In the Book of Thomas, for example, we see the opposite view that knowledge is not evil.

1) The Book of Thomas is not canon, and for good reason. It contains Gnostic heresy not in line with orthodox Christianity, and was written nearly a century after the last canonical gospel (about 170 AD to Luke's 90 AD). Heck, by the time that it was written, Tatian's canon had already established the use of the 4 gospels.
2) How is that the "opposite view" of canonical scripture? Where in scripture do you find "Knowledge is evil"?

[Suska]

In my opinion from Biblical references the concept of Original Sin could be interpreted as Mortality. Yes we die, we die because we're born of Adam. On the other hand its been left so open and is so ill defined it can easily be used as a mechanism of abuse. Personally I consciously reject the notion of Original Sin and lay the blame for its confusion on its history on the recent side, that is to say its another Pauline powerplay.

It isn't at all right to predetermine the worth and potentials of people or anything. If you come with your hands full how will you pick anything up on the way.

As an artist I do not report on fallen people struggling to do good, what I see is not fallen angels, but spirits swooping down with purpose and even better - enthusiasm. Skill is a wonder, style is a beauty, depth is especially interesting - more to see and to do. I agree that we need ways to get over it - but we need ways to get into it too.

[Aekos]

The Book of Thomas is not canon, and for good reason. It contains Gnostic heresy not in line with orthodox Christianity

Or is orthodox Christianity a heresy of the early Gnostic church? The winners got to write the history.

written nearly a century after the last canonical gospel

It could very well have been written around the same time as some of the canonical gospels. Some suggest that it predates them.

Where in scripture do you find "Knowledge is evil"?

The "fall of man" doctrine.

[Lucky Strike]

Well, the Pauline epistles are not "gospels", but that's largely irrelevant. They are still canon. Yes, it was based on the decisions of men, but it was men given their authority by Jesus, who is God, and who were guided by the Holy Spirit.

More to the point though, the question was originally posed as where in the Bible do we find original sin, and then rejected the Pauline epistles as not being gospels. It's true that they are not gospels, but they are canonical scripture, and as such they are free from error.

I think that from a Catholic point of view, what you are saying is totally correct. That is, original sin, from the Catholic perspective, is internally consistent with church cannon.

The issue arises when you step outside of that perspective. Anyone who rejects the presuppositions of Catholicism would, I still believe, have good grounds to question whether original sin makes sense, or is even central to Christianity. That question - i.e., the merits of Catholicism vs. other branches of Christianity - is a different matter altogether, however.

[Todd D.]

It's not a uniquely Catholic concept at all. Protestants adhere to the same New Testament canon that Catholics do, yet they reject the doctrine of Apostolic Succession and Church infallibility. The quotes from the OT used to justify the concept of Original Sin are also in the Protestant canon as well. Further, even if they don't explicitly refer to it as "Original Sin", the doctrines are identical to the Catholic understanding in every mainstream Protestant denomination that I am aware of.

Again, the doctrine of "Original Sin" is merely that Man is born a fallen being, that he is imperfect and prone to error. Even if you want to throw out ALL scripture, I don't really see how this can be denied by casual observation of our own lives.

[Oxymoron]

I don't really see how this can be denied by casual observation of our own lives.

Because there is nothing concrete compare with, only vague principles and mythical figures.

[Todd D.]

What the hell are you talking about? If you don't understand what's being discussed, don't chime in with worthless one liners.

Original sin says that we are fallen, and that we will make mistakes. Has anyone ever lived their lives perfectly, never making ONE mistake? There's no need to compare "vague principles and mythical figures". If you've ever fallen short of perfection, then it shows that you are a fallen being.

[Oxymoron]

Original sin says that we are fallen, and that we will make mistakes. Has anyone ever lived their lives perfectly, never making ONE mistake? There's no need to compare "vague principles and mythical figures". If you've ever fallen short of perfection, then it shows that you are a fallen being.

Since perfection is in the eyes of the beholder no one or no event or thing is trully perfect for everyone. Meaning it doesnt exist thus, there is no sin. Or on another track Lets say we were created by God, then he knew what we would do, and thus its not sin because we act in the way we were made. No matter how you cut it, Sin is a rather rediculous concept.

[Todd D.]

Since perfection is in the eyes of the beholder no one or no event or thing is trully perfect for everyone

No, it's not.

Even if you want to say that moral perfection is in the eyes of the beholder (again, it's not, but whatever), you'd still be hard pressed to find a person that has always gotten 100% on every single objective examination that they've ever taken.

By the way, you just misspelled "truly", eliminating yourself from the running. Not a bad thing, just saying.

Meaning it doesnt exist thus, there is no sin.

It takes an especially ignorant person to look around the world today and say "everybody is perfect".

Or on another track Lets say we were created by God, then he knew what we would do, and thus its not sin because we act in the way we were made.

What? God endowed us with Free Will, we are responsible for the choices that we make.

Regardless, even if you want to follow that silly logic, alcoholics are "born that way", does that mean that it's not wrong if they kill someone in a drunk driving accident? Of course not.

The idea that "I was born that way" absolves oneself of responsibility is 1st grade mentality. It's so flawed I can't believe an adult would even try and use it.

[Oxymoron]

No, it's not.

Define it then and provide and example .

Even if you want to say that moral perfection is in the eyes of the beholder (again, it's not, but whatever), you'd still be hard pressed to find a person that has always gotten 100% on every single objective examination that they've ever taken.

Right and you will be hard pressed to find anything being 100% accurate or right or perfect
not human not machine not nature nothing.

It takes an especially stupid person to look around the world today and say "there is no sin".

Do you mind talking like a normal person without insults? Is that to much to ask an adult?

God endowed us with Free Will, we are responsible for the choices that we make.

Regardless, even if you want to follow that silly logic, alcoholics are "born that way", does that mean that it's not wrong if they kill someone in a drunk driving accident? Of course not.

Ok so is it a sin to Drive Drunk? I thought it was more like not obeying your parents and eating meat on lent.

The idea that "I was born that way" absolves oneself of responsibility is 1st grade mentality. It's so flawed I can't believe an adult would even try and use it.

It obsolves us from Judgement by an absente landlord which is what organized religion created and marketed.

We do have morals but it has nothing to do with God. We are not born into sin, we are born innocent.

[Todd D.]

Right and you will be hard pressed to find anything being 100% accurate or right or perfect
not human not machine not nature nothing.

So, you're saying that we live in a fallen world, where humans are all fallible and imperfect?

Gosh, I seem to remember someone else in this thread saying something very similar. Let me see if I can find it. Oh, here it is:

Original Sin is the idea that we are fallen beings, and have a sinful nature.

Basically, I said "Original sin is obvious, since nobody is perfect", to which you just responded "No, original sin doesn't exist, nothing is perfect". Good job.

Do you mind talking like a normal person without insults? Is that to much to ask an adult?

I edited the above post to be less abrasive before you responded. Point still stands, you are essentially looking around the world and saying "Everyone's perfect".

Ok so is it a sin to Drive Drunk? I thought it was more like not obeying your parents and eating meat on lent.

"Sin" is falling short of perfection. Nothing more. You are confining "sin" to merely the adherence to religious rules, which is ignorant. Sin is all-encompassing, measured against the standard of perfection. I would suggest that near everyone would consider killing someone in a drunk driving accident to be "falling short of perfection".

It obsolves us from Judgement by an absente landlord which is what organized religion created and marketed.

Like I said, if you don't understand the concepts being discussed, you'd be better off just staying out of a thread. "God as an absentee landlord" is so entry-level.

I'm not sure why it "obsolves" [sic] us of judgment either. Does being born with alcoholism absolve us of the law when we drive drunk?

We are not born into sin, we are born innocent.

So, we're not born in to sin, we all just happen to sin? What a coincidence.

That's like saying "We are not born to poop, we are porn without poop". Sin is a natural result of being human. We are fallen, EVERYBODY will sin. How you can look at that and say "But it's not part of our nature" is beyond me.