This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Original sin

Postby JRosemary » September 8th, 2008, 3:44 am

I understand you and Kolbitar to both be saying the same thing, Tuke--or at least something very similar. I think you both perceive human nature--or the human self--as something that is, post-Eden, evil. Something that has to be destroyed and reborn with a different nature. I don't view it that way, as I think I've stated on this thread often enough now :rolleyes:

And I think I've already answered your questions regarding the universality of sin, etc. on this thread, so I won't be so tedious as to repeat them in this post. :wink:

I think Dave had an interesting post on the different takes on original sin--east and west; Augustine, Jerome, etc. I hope someone else responds to it...someone who holds with the doctrine in the first place and who is therefore more fit than me to discuss the matter!

Meanwhile, I'll just leave y'all with a fitting Star Trek quote:

"I am pleased to see that we have differences. May we together become greater than the sum of both of us."

~ Surak (sort of) in Star Trek TOS: The Savage Curtain
User avatar
JRosemary
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: New Jersey

Postby Tuke » September 8th, 2008, 4:02 am

"The 'great golden chain of Concord' has united the whole of Edmund Spenser's world.... Nothing is repressed; nothing is insubordinate. To read him is to grow in mental health." The Allegory Of Love (Faerie Queene)

2 Corinthians IV.17 The Weight of Glory
User avatar
Tuke
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 971
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: Florida

Postby JRosemary » September 8th, 2008, 4:11 am

User avatar
JRosemary
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: New Jersey

Postby Tuke » September 8th, 2008, 4:23 am

If you don't want to pursue this, please don't feel obliged, but you've opened more questions than you've answered. To wit, you speak of the reality of sin, yet it's a myth. You speak of free will, yet seem to suggest that sin can't exist apart from God.
I don't think Orthodox Jews view Adam and Eve's fall from God's good intent as myth; that would be apocryphal.
Last edited by Tuke on September 8th, 2008, 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The 'great golden chain of Concord' has united the whole of Edmund Spenser's world.... Nothing is repressed; nothing is insubordinate. To read him is to grow in mental health." The Allegory Of Love (Faerie Queene)

2 Corinthians IV.17 The Weight of Glory
User avatar
Tuke
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 971
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: Florida

Postby mitchellmckain » September 8th, 2008, 5:11 am

mitchellmckain
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Jul 2007

Postby Kolbitar » September 8th, 2008, 9:45 am

The man who lives in contact with what he believes to be a living Church is a man always expecting to meet Plato and Shakespeare tomorrow at breakfast. He is always expecting to see some truth that he has never seen before. --Chesterton

Sober Inebriation: http://soberinebriationblog.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Kolbitar
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Feb 2000
Location: Exile

Postby AllanS » September 8th, 2008, 11:26 am

“And turn their grief into song?" he replied. "That would be a gracious act and a good beginning."

Quid and Harmony: a fund-raising project for the Fistula Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. www.smithysbook.com
User avatar
AllanS
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Hobart Tasmania

Postby postodave » September 8th, 2008, 5:55 pm

So I drew my sword and got ready
But the lamb ran away with the crown
postodave
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Oct 2004

Re: Original sin

Postby Ben2747 » September 8th, 2008, 7:14 pm

Ben2747
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Jul 2007

Postby JRosemary » September 8th, 2008, 7:58 pm

User avatar
JRosemary
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: New Jersey

Postby mitchellmckain » September 8th, 2008, 8:11 pm

mitchellmckain
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Jul 2007

Postby alecto » September 8th, 2008, 9:32 pm

I think that the reasonableness of a concept of original sin depends on what the definition of original sin is, and there seems to be a plethora of such definitions.

When I was a kid, original sin seemed to be a kind of curse. Because Man disobeyed God, God cursed man with not living in the Garden and having various other difficulties like pain in childbirth. This was never very satisfactory. Cursing Seth for Adam's mistakes seems evil, and God should not be evil, therefore this reading must be wrong. The same argument works for every other place offspring seem to be cursed because of the sins of their parents.

Later, I thought of it as a kind of causation, of which there were two types. One was that life was just hard outside the Garden, but there were rules for living in the Garden that were violated so now the Humans had to live outside and suffer the natural consequences. The second type was a kind of metaphysical power exerted by Adam and Eve over creation. By their actions they "magically" altered the physics of themselves and possibly Nature and changed things so they were now mortal and suffered from various conditions. Both of these types still begged the question of why the injustices are allowed to propagate to children. Why were Adam and Eve allowed a choice, but their children were not?

Today, I don't believe in the literal truth of the story. This eliminates some trouble but causes others. It is self-evident that all human beings (at least every one I have interacted with) have within them the ability to do evil. One could call this "original sin" as Aquinas seems to do, but "original" harks back to Adam and Eve and gets us into the problems of causation, so maybe this is not a good term. Also, though Paul said that death entered the world of human affairs because of Adam but would leave because of Christ, I do not believe this necessitates a literal interpretation of original sin as being caused by Adam. If the story is only a metaphor pointing out the condition of sinfulness, the condition is still very real and Paul points to it exactly.

My understanding of the Jewish belief is that Adam and Eve are the exemplars of our own condition. We are born as exactly morally pure as they are, but just as they did, we all degrade ourselves with bad choices that cause us to fail. This power corresponds to original sin but it is not caused to exist in me because of Adam. I do not know how the Jewish tradition handles the physical difference between the cosmos before the disobedience of Adam and Eve and after their disobedience.

One should note in any case that the sin of Adam and Eve is not the eating of the fruit itself. Eve suffers no effect of this. It is only when she shares it that there is an effect. The "knowledge of good and evil" comes into existence only when the one person gets the other person to do wrong. This is yet another example of this notion, pre-eminent in Scripture, that evil is first and foremost a kind of contamination. That the exemplary sin is a sharing of contamination is very important and yet this is missed in most exegesis of this story. The immediate effect of "knowledge of good and evil" is not wrath or violence or any will to hurt someone, but shame. It is not fear of having eaten the fruit that causes them to hide, but fear of nakedness, which seems to have no intrinsic harm of its own. It is as if original sin and "the knowledge of good and evil" do not consist of a will to do harm but a mistaken belief about reality: shame where none should exist, yet strong enough to cause one to fear a beloved father. I have never seen an exegesis of this either.

There seems to be a corollary issue to original sin with the notion of salvation, and associated heresies. If original sin is a kind of mark on human nature that always exists, then there can then be arguments about how to ameliorate it. Differences about this have become huge issues of theology. Some believe no amelioration is possible, ever, without God's direct intervention. Some believe that some amelioration is possible but being "cured" of sin can only occur by direct Divine intervention. Others believe Christ's teachings are sufficient, that they (plus the fact of the Resurrection) enable Man to thereafter remove sin completely on his own. Yet others believe any person can do this, if by proper attention to the Natural Law they apprehend Christ's teachings on their own. For all four of these options, there are opinions of theology which consider not the total elimination of sin but the creation of a state by which entry into God's Kingdom is possible despite sin. E.g. that it is only possible by direct Divine intervention, that it requires Divine and Human cooperation, that it can be accomplished by Man directly by following Christ's teachings after the Resurrection, and that it can be accomplished by any person who understands a critical part of the Natural Law. People have died because of fighting over these issues.

It can be seen that this issue is very complex and deep, and perhaps only minor headway can be made in understanding it. In any case, we cannot get anywhere unless we know exactly which issue we are addressing. I can easily see someone getting bent out of shape about the issue of salvation because another person's definition of original sin is so different than that of the first that they think the other is contradicting their position, when in reality they are simply not starting in the same place but think that they are.
Sentio ergo est.
User avatar
alecto
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Austin, TX

Postby mitchellmckain » September 9th, 2008, 6:27 am

Last edited by mitchellmckain on September 10th, 2008, 3:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
mitchellmckain
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Jul 2007

Postby JRosemary » September 9th, 2008, 6:54 pm

User avatar
JRosemary
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: New Jersey

Postby moogdroog » September 10th, 2008, 7:55 am

User avatar
moogdroog
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 486
Joined: May 2007

PreviousNext

Return to Religion, Science, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 18 guests

cron