• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

original sin

cafe

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
9,827
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Yeah. I never had to read PL, but we read part of Dante's Inferno, which I thought was one of the most ridiculous things I'd ever read. He must have been an unhappy person.
You'd almost have to be to want to spend that much time thinking about people being eternally tormented.
 
S

Society

Guest
i find the evolution of this interesting: while the idea comes from jewish mythology, christianity seemed to have taken it to a whole new level, a focus point for collective guilt, and yet in jewdaism guilt is almost everywhere but there, with stuff like we are all repeanting for the birth pain of our mothers and all that sort of jargon, and still so little of it has anything to do with the original sin, to the point that if you'd say the term "original sin" it would largely be recognized by most as a christian concept.

i might add to the fire the popularized kabala interpretation: the fruit of knowledge is viewed as the fruit of sexuality, "to know" in the biblical sense, and depending on school of thought, the snake is viewed as either adam's alienated sexuality ("it wasn't me, it was my..." <- tell me if you heard this before) or god's sexuality. like i said, its there, its just not really made a big deal of.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
i find the evolution of this interesting: while the idea comes from jewish mythology, christianity seemed to have taken it to a whole new level, a focus point for collective guilt, and yet in jewdaism guilt is almost everywhere but there, with stuff like we are all repeanting for the birth pain of our mothers and all that sort of jargon, and still so little of it has anything to do with the original sin, to the point that if you'd say the term "original sin" it would largely be recognized by most as a christian concept.

i might add to the fire the popularized kabala interpretation: the fruit of knowledge is viewed as the fruit of sexuality, "to know" in the biblical sense, and depending on school of thought, the snake is viewed as either adam's alienated sexuality ("it wasn't me, it was my..." <- tell me if you heard this before) or god's sexuality. like i said, its there, its just not really made a big deal of.
Yeah, the rabbi in the talk said some things kind of like this. It sounds pagan to me. Which is weird because the Old Testament is so opposite in a lot of ways.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
Few (no?) original sin stories make any sense.

Why would sex be the original sin, if its mechanism is by God's design? That would make God the author of sin.

The fruit also makes no sense. God did not need it and Adam and Eve were not supposed to have it so there was zero point in having it exist there.

Disobedience relating to the fruit also makes no sense for the same reason above. If God didn't want the tree messed with then he should not have put it there.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Few (no?) original sin stories make any sense.

Why would sex be the original sin, if its mechanism is by God's design? That would make God the author of sin.

The fruit also makes no sense. God did not need it and Adam and Eve were not supposed to have it so there was zero point in having it exist there.

Disobedience relating to the fruit also makes no sense for the same reason above. If God didn't want the tree messed with then he should not have put it there.

Yeah, it's kind of setting people up for failure.
 

Polaris

AKA Nunki
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
2,529
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
^ Most Christians would say that the reason God put the Fruit there was to give humans a clear option to disobey him, so that their obedience would be a result of their free choice rather than their ignorance of the possibility of sinning. The main point of the story, in most Christians' minds, is to explain why there is sin in the world (the possibility of sinning is a consequence of our possessing free will) and how it is that God, in spite of knowing what would happen when he created this world, escapes responsibility for sin (he escapes responsibility for sin, Christians argue, because he never forced Adam and Eve to eat the Fruit. In my opinion, that's a flawed argument; it's something like saying that a parent who leaves out a gun that is subsequently found and fired by their child bears none of the responsibility for their child's actions. It's even worse, since God, unlike a human parent, was omniscient, and knew exactly what the outcome of providing the Fruit would be).

It all seems like an unnecessary bother when the possibility of eternal life in heaven demonstrates that there are possible worlds in which people can have free will and at the same time never be at risk of sinning. Unless, of course, people in heaven lose their free wills, in which case, one would have to wonder why God ever bothered giving people freedom in the first place, since freedom would clearly be unnecessary for a state of perfection.
 

Pseudo

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,051
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
^ Most Christians would say that the reason God put the Fruit there was to give humans a clear option to disobey him, so that their obedience would be a result of their free choice rather than their ignorance of the possibility of sinning. The main point of the story, in most Christians' minds, is to explain why there is sin in the world (the possibility of sinning is a consequence of our possessing free will) and how it is that God, in spite of knowing what would happen when he created this world, escapes responsibility for sin (he escapes responsibility for sin, Christians argue, because he never forced Adam and Eve to eat the Fruit. In my opinion, that's a flawed argument; it's something like saying that a parent who leaves out a gun that is subsequently found and fired by their child bears none of the responsibility for their child's actions. It's even worse, since God, unlike a human parent, was omniscient, and knew exactly what the outcome of providing the Fruit would be).

It all seems like an unnecessary bother when the possibility of eternal life in heaven demonstrates that there are possible worlds in which people can have free will and at the same time never be at risk of sinning. Unless, of course, people in heaven lose their free wills, in which case, one would have to wonder why God ever bothered giving people freedom in the first place, since freedom would clearly be unnecessary for a state of perfection.


I think the idea is that people entering heaven are unitied with god, "enlighted" if you will and so do not have the motivation to sin because there are fully satisfied in gods love. So the impossibility of sin in heaven is a result of lacking motive rather than lacking ability
 

Pseudo

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,051
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Yes, I think that is the Catch-22.

How could eating the fruit cause sin? They would have only picked the fruit if they were already sinful in nature. Hence, they weren't perfect to start with, and neither was paradise. Either they were perfect and wouldn't have fallen, or they were imperfect and already fallen; the whole bit with the fruit only clarifies it.

To me, this is because the story wasn't meant to make sense in that literal kind of way. The gist is that people had everything but chose to turn from God and thus lost paradise; this also explained the current to the social order, where men because the head of women (so the order is God -> men -> women and so forth), and why there was toil involved in tending the earth, and why women suffered pain in childbirth... you definitely see the "occupational categories" there for male and female roles. And so on.

You're just taking the way the culture already works, and trying to explain it in a way that makes sense by using this story. Kind of a montheistic way of explaining, "How the Leopard Got His Spots," so to speak.

Is there a verse that says the the inclination to sim did not exist previous to the fruit. Could it be argued that the original sin unleashed sin by making it a reality but didn't create sinful inclinations. Why would god mak something with sinful inclinations? Tough question perhaps because anything perfect would be indistinguishable for himself and thereby prevent any kind of relation. Maybe because the physically aspect of man makes him vulnerable to different physical imperfect motivations. (I would think this is later solved by Christ living perfectly in a human body) ?
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Is there a verse that says the the inclination to sim did not exist previous to the fruit. Could it be argued that the original sin unleashed sin by making it a reality but didn't create sinful inclinations. Why would god mak something with sinful inclinations? Tough question perhaps because anything perfect would be indistinguishable for himself and thereby prevent any kind of relation. Maybe because the physically aspect of man makes him vulnerable to different physical imperfect motivations. (I would think this is later solved by Christ living perfectly in a human body) ?
So then this would relate again to detachment from desires, I suppose, and desires being the root of suffering, leading to unwise choices, leading to sin.

Christ is certainly an example of a good person, but not exactly an example of how everyone should live in every way. If everyone gave away all their money, there would be no money because no one would have any use for it (though this wouldn't be bad thing). If everyone was celibate, there would be no more babies. If everyone was completely nonviolent, no one would defend themselves when attacked by animals, no one would hunt animals, and so people would be killed and starve. Plus, just restricting nonviolence to humans, it would only work if everyone followed the rules. Otherwise people would attack people and no one would defend them. If you always turned the other cheek and never defended yourself, you would likely keep getting bullied and might be in real danger. So in short, Christ showed an example of how a person could transcend a physical body, but not fully embrace it. Christ was relatively detached from his body. I don't think asceticism is the ideal. (And this of course is not a criticism exclusively aimed at Christianity. Many religions have asceticism, it's just that good ones in my book embrace the physical as much as the transcendent. Christianity has a history of rejecting it.)

Why would God want a relationship with something less than itself though? Why not just different but equal, like a male aspect and a female aspect?
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Christ was relatively detached from his body.
Perhaps in the Gnostic gospels, where Christ is a phantom in human form. This is not so in the Synoptic Gospels, where the concept of Christ being fully human and fully divine is strongly emphasized, being the basis for the Christian concept of the Incarnation.

I don't think asceticism is the ideal. (And this of course is not a criticism exclusively aimed at Christianity. Many religions have asceticism, it's just that good ones in my book embrace the physical as much as the transcendent. Christianity has a history of rejecting it.)
Actually Christianity is far less otherworldly than many other religions, especially compared to Gnosticism or Neo-Platonism. Even the Puritans were far more worldly than the common caricature presumes (for example they embraced sexuality as a gift from God, and in connection with Calvinist teachings thought worldly success indicated Divine favor). GK Chesterton once noted that having a cross as a symbol indicates the connection between this world and the next(and it was on the cross from which Christ entered the other world).

Why would God want a relationship with something less than itself though?
Why does a parent want a relationship with his child? Remember, we are his children, his creation, made in his image.
 

Pseudo

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,051
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
So then this would relate again to detachment from desires, I suppose, and desires being the root of suffering, leading to unwise choices, leading to sin.

Christ is certainly an example of a good person, but not exactly an example of how everyone should live in every way. If everyone gave away all their money, there would be no money because no one would have any use for it (though this wouldn't be bad thing). If everyone was celibate, there would be no more babies. If everyone was completely nonviolent, no one would defend themselves when attacked by animals, no one would hunt animals, and so people would be killed and starve. Plus, just restricting nonviolence to humans, it would only work if everyone followed the rules. Otherwise people would attack people and no one would defend them. If you always turned the other cheek and never defended yourself, you would likely keep getting bullied and might be in real danger. So in short, Christ showed an example of how a person could transcend a physical body, but not fully embrace it. Christ was relatively detached from his body. I don't think asceticism is the ideal. (And this of course is not a criticism exclusively aimed at Christianity. Many religions have asceticism, it's just that good ones in my book embrace the physical as much as the transcendent. Christianity has a history of rejecting it.)

Why would God want a relationship with something less than itself though? Why not just different but equal, like a male aspect and a female aspect?

Firstly there are times when christ is aggressive. Expelling money changers from the temple. Also while there no evidence he wasn't a vegetarian, the disciples did eat me eat specifically I think Peter was commanded in a visions to eat the non-kosher foods including shell fish. (Thought It was a metaphor for Gentiles so perhaps this one guy got a special pass). Jesus also did not teach against sex (though strongly against adultery). Yes he was celibate but think about it everyone he met was his child.

Secondly jesus taught that the reason you wouldn't be concerned with money is because go would provide for you. Something like "god provides for birds and you are more than a bird"

I think you have to keep in mind the idea of an enteral life after death to understand imitating christ. Worldy concern are important but not when compared against an eternal relationship with all that is good in the universe. I think christ was very connected to his body other wise his perfection and death wouldn't be so important.

Perfection doesn't mean totally rejection o the physical, you can still experience sex, food, sleep, the environment animals, music, art ect. There is a theological idea that the purpose of a human is to live out their authentic self fully as they were made by god. That includes you body but it doesn't mean you over indulge in the sensual parts of life. You are your body but also more. You body has a purpose in this world but soul has a purpose in other world so you need to care for them both.



I'm not the authority but I think one theory for an imperfect creation is that it underscores the perfection of god. Basically how can you fully experience glory with nothing else o compare it to. Introducing imperfectio to allow for the appreciation of perfection and then sending jesus as a way to reconnect the imperfect to the perfect after "proving the point"


I would think the reason that god would do this rather than great a female/male dual system is that it's sort of an arbitrary separation of parts of an all encompassing being. Gender is a human physical quality not applicable to a universal "force". Just think, we accept that humans have male/female attributes so really it's just a pointless division if qualities.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Perhaps in the Gnostic gospels, where Christ is a phantom in human form. This is not so in the Synoptic Gospels, where the concept of Christ being fully human and fully divine is strongly emphasized, being the basis for the Christian concept of the Incarnation.
This may be, but there aren't many details, and Christ was still ascetic.

Actually Christianity is far less otherworldly than many other religions, especially compared to Gnosticism or Neo-Platonism.
Oh I wouldn't say many other religions. And of course it would depend on which version of Christianity; the most liberal form would be, but the most conservative would certainly not be.
Even the Puritans were far more worldly than the common caricature presumes (for example they embraced sexuality as a gift from God, and in connection with Calvinist teachings thought worldly success indicated Divine favor). GK Chesterton once noted that having a cross as a symbol indicates the connection between this world and the next(and it was on the cross from which Christ entered the other world).
Really?? Evidence? Examples? I find this hard to believe. Perhaps there were a couple of other religious traditions out of hundreds compared to which Puritans "embraced sexuality." But being not all the way on the extreme end of something does not in any way entail being on the other end. Did they embrace it as more than procreation? Were women supposed to enjoy it? Were people encouraged to pleasure themselves and do sexual acts other than missionary position intercourse?
Why does a parent want a relationship with his child? Remember, we are his children, his creation, made in his image.
Because children grow into adults, and so attain a level of eventual equality. This is not the case with God.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Firstly there are times when christ is aggressive. Expelling money changers from the temple. Also while there no evidence he wasn't a vegetarian, the disciples did eat me eat specifically I think Peter was commanded in a visions to eat the non-kosher foods including shell fish. (Thought It was a metaphor for Gentiles so perhaps this one guy got a special pass). Jesus also did not teach against sex (though strongly against adultery). Yes he was celibate but think about it everyone he met was his child.
Haha I hadn't thought of that! Good point.

Secondly jesus taught that the reason you wouldn't be concerned with money is because go would provide for you. Something like "god provides for birds and you are more than a bird"

I think you have to keep in mind the idea of an enteral life after death to understand imitating christ. Worldy concern are important but not when compared against an eternal relationship with all that is good in the universe. I think christ was very connected to his body other wise his perfection and death wouldn't be so important.

Perfection doesn't mean totally rejection o the physical, you can still experience sex, food, sleep, the environment animals, music, art ect. There is a theological idea that the purpose of a human is to live out their authentic self fully as they were made by god. That includes you body but it doesn't mean you over indulge in the sensual parts of life. You are your body but also more. You body has a purpose in this world but soul has a purpose in other world so you need to care for them both.



I'm not the authority but I think one theory for an imperfect creation is that it underscores the perfection of god. Basically how can you fully experience glory with nothing else o compare it to. Introducing imperfectio to allow for the appreciation of perfection and then sending jesus as a way to reconnect the imperfect to the perfect after "proving the point"
Ok, all that sounds reasonable. Not exactly what I prefer, but no big criticisms.

I would think the reason that god would do this rather than great a female/male dual system is that it's sort of an arbitrary separation of parts of an all encompassing being. Gender is a human physical quality not applicable to a universal "force". Just think, we accept that humans have male/female attributes so really it's just a pointless division if qualities.
I don't really understand this. I don't think of it as arbitrary; if we can have harmony between male and female individuals, why not a God and Goddess? I do believe it all reduces to a neutral force. But then the force wouldn't be a being, and so would have no purpose for creation or relationship.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
This may be, but there aren't many details, and Christ was still ascetic.
Yes he was an ascetic, so what? I already addressed the issue of asceticism before. It's not based on a rejection of the body, but rather renouncing certain goods for higher goods.

Oh I wouldn't say many other religions. And of course it would depend on which version of Christianity; the most liberal form would be, but the most conservative would certainly not be.
Depends on what one means by "Liberal" and "Conservative"; also taking into effect that such terms mean little unless one is only talking about post-19th century theology, and even then within a Protestant context. For example Catholicism before the 1960s was often criticized for being too lax on sexual matters. This could even be dated back to the Reformation when the Reformers criticised the Church's relative tolerance of prostitution(going by St. Thomas Aquinas's analogy of it to a sewer removing waste). Catholic cultures have been very well known for their embrace of sensuality even to this day, abeit in more secularized form. Most of our impressions of the hardline puritanical Catholics usually come from the experience of the Irish as a result of the Potato Famine; although within the American Church this often led to clashes with the Italians for example(that's another story).

Really?? Evidence? Examples? I find this hard to believe.
It's commonly known to most people who study early colonial America. To provide one source summarizing this:
Contrary to much popular thinking, the Puritans were not sexual prudes. Although they strongly condemned sexual relations outside of marriage--levying fines or even whipping those who fornicated, committed adultery or sodomy, or bore children outside of wedlock--they attached a high value to the marital tie. Nor did Puritans abstain from alcohol; even though they objected to drunkenness, they did not believe alcohol as sinful in itself. They were not opposed to artistic beauty; although they were suspicious of the theater and the visual arts, the Puritans valued poetry. Indeed, John Milton (1603-1674), one of England's greatest poets, was a Puritan. Even the association of the Puritans with drab colors is wrong. They especially liked the colors red and blue.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/active_learning/explorations/puritans/puritans_menu.cfm

Did they embrace it as more than procreation? Were women supposed to enjoy it?
Yes. Sexual pleasure was seen positively, cause the more pleasurable it was the most often you'd have sex, and thus the more you'd procreate. This was not uncommon among the Reformers, since Martin Luther often said that a wife should long for her husband to return to the bed chamber.

Were people encouraged to pleasure themselves and do sexual acts other than missionary position intercourse?
No masturbation is a sin. As for specific positions, I don't know and that's quite irrelevant in any case. How well the Puritans measure up to modern day sensibilities about sex is not the issue, and nor is it appropriate for historical analysis.

Because children grow into adults, and so attain a level of eventual equality. This is not the case with God.
Of course we don't have equality with God, that would be silly to assert. Equality is often ego-centric, and transcending one's ego to unite with God is a major facet of the spiritual path. We do have fraternity with God through the I-Thou relationship.
 

Pseudo

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,051
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I don't really understand this. I don't think of it as arbitrary; if we can have harmony between male and female individuals, why not a God and Goddess? I do believe it all reduces to a neutral force. But then the force wouldn't be a being, and so would have no purpose for creation or relationship.


Ok, to be clearer. My thoughts were

1.) How do you separate perfection into male and female versions of perfection? Where would things like wisdom, justice, compassion, perseverance (pretty much every trait actually) fall. There's is nothing distinctly masculine or feminine in them to create meaningful separation. Especially qualities like goodness, how would you separate goodness between male/female.

Also, since God in supposed to be wholly perfect and separation would make the resulting forces not a perfect God, but a relation of two imperfect beings. He can't split himself and retain his nature. Basically I feel like it points back to adam and eve. The complimenting attributes of men and women highlighting the non-division and wholeness of Gods qualities.

2.) There is the idea of the Trinity. A three part relation God to himself. Each member has different attributes, but they are still all perfect so they don't provide any contrast "goodness" wise if they are all in a vacuum together.



3.) As to the idea that a force doesn't need a relationship because it is not a being: My understanding is that God did not create us to keep him company for his benefit. He created us for the benefit of the universe to experience him. Sounds egotistical BUT! remember that if God is not a being then it's not about someone asking you to worship their personality its about asking you to worship everything that is good (which happens to be them). Mercy, Kindness, Justice, goodness, charity, joy, love and existence itself all wrapped into the idea of Goodness and our existence is to showcase and then experience that goodness.



pheeeew, out of breath.........finger breath




as a side note to your discussion with [MENTION=4212]Peguy[/MENTION], I don't really understand the assertion that parents want relationships with their children because the children eventually will become their equals. If we just wanted beings equal to us We would just interact with other adults rather than waiting around for our children's brains to get done cooking. Obviously motivations for having children are different, and beings able to determine the exact motivation is elusive to me, I don't think most peoples answer would me "To recreate myself".
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
The concept of sacred masculinity/femininity is largely metaphor and symbolic. Speaking within a Christian context: there is God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Mother of God. Also the Church is referred to as "the Bride of Christ". So the harmony of male/female is represented within the Christian context.
 

Words of Ivory

facettes de la petite mor
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
492
MBTI Type
INFJ
Original sin is more or less a concept fabricated by the Christian church to promote guilt, and nothing more. By claiming that people will always be guilty of sin, they will always have to answer to the church to be worthy of their faith.

It's definition has changed over time, with no real straight answer.

It didn't even exist in the bible until The New Testament. Which should be all you need to know. Nowhere does the concept appear in the Book of Genesis, which is a pretty telling fact right there. Original Sin is also completely absent in the teachings of Judaism, the precursor to the entire Christian faith.
 
S

Society

Guest
It didn't even exist in the bible until The New Testament. Which should be all you need to know. Nowhere does the concept appear in the Book of Genesis, which is a pretty telling fact right there. Original Sin is also completely absent in the teachings of Judaism, the precursor to the entire Christian faith.

that's is and isn't true... i mean, the story is there, but the original sin interpretation and the big shananigan around it isn't.
i still find it sort of weird, because jewdaism is huge on guilt in every other aspect of life: every family obligation from childhood to marriage to parenting, every economic duty from charity to work to taxes to employe employer relations, social obligations from forgiveness to respecting the sorrows of others... it's all laced with guilt... and yet somehow, sexuality slipped between the cracks (pun intended). with a thousand and one sins, you'd expect at least one of them to be considered original :p
 

tinker683

Whackus Bonkus
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
2,882
MBTI Type
ISFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
While I don't attach any weight to the original sin story much at all, my INxx ex-girlfriend did present an idea to me that I think is worth mentioning: That the genesis story isn't meant to be read literally but rather symbolically and that it's more of an allegory to the idea that humanity may have been "perfect" or "blissful" at some point in time but as a result of some unspecified chain of events, humanity devolved in some way that removed them from "God" and resulted in the humans that we are today.

My own objections to the above idea aside, it sounds far more likely than a talking snake and an overly brutal punishment for eating an ill-placed bit of produce :dry:

But that's me
 
Top