Original Sin

Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by BigJoeNobody, Jul 31, 2015.

  1. Namaste Jesus

    Namaste Jesus Praise the Lord and Enjoy the Chai Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    3,319
    Likes Received:
    790
    RE:80
    What's this? A ghostly post or hast thou returned?
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2015
  2. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,607
    Likes Received:
    2,047
    Not sure yet.

    The thought was inspired by what Earl wrote, and he and I, like Wil, go way back ... as I have no way to respond to Earl other than here, I thought it worth a shot, to see where it might go.
     
    StevePame likes this.
  3. Aussie Thoughts

    Aussie Thoughts Just my 2 cents

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    413
    Not exactly. AS I was taught. In the first earth age, the time spoken of in Genesis 1:1, II Peter 3, and Jeremiah 4:18 to the end of the chapter, we were not in flesh bodies, but rather in spiritual form. The same spirit now occupying the flesh. The 1st earth age ended with the fall of Satan. That fall is the reason we are now in flesh form and are born with a propensity to sin.
     
  4. BigJoeNobody

    BigJoeNobody Professional Argument Attractor

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    121
    interesting idea, but i fail to see that as a primary Christian view. Nor is it really conducive to the rest of the Biblical accounts. Either way, I don't agree, nor disagree that that is a valid view from a biblical standpoint, but not exactly the point of the OP.
     
  5. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,883
    Likes Received:
    1,972
    No...maybe not conventional...but I've heard before that creation in gen1 was in thought... And gen2 was the allegory in physical form...

    I believe them both to be allegorical.... And this is discussiin
     
  6. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,607
    Likes Received:
    2,047
    But the sin was the same – it was pride in both the case of men and angels – in both cases.

    But the Hebrew Scriptures do not discuss the origin of Satan. Personally I find the idea of 'the Adversary' a peculiarly anthropomorphic concept and a flawed one, but then I've never had the chance to discuss it with a Jew, so it could be my understanding.
     
  7. BigJoeNobody

    BigJoeNobody Professional Argument Attractor

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    121
    just on the basis of this, and not on the OP, would you say that perhaps pride wasn't the sin, but rather the cause of the sin? From an Islamic viewpoint, both of their sins are that they disobeyed God (Allah). Pride is what drove them to it, at least in Satan. Adam & Eve's pride was in a state of deception. One brought on by Satan, and personally it seems that Satan was trying to prove that he was better than man (Adam, of whom he was commanded to bow to but refused).
     
  8. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,883
    Likes Received:
    1,972
    I believe the adversary to be in my mind...

    Others may agree...hee hee..
     
  9. Aussie Thoughts

    Aussie Thoughts Just my 2 cents

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    413
    The way I was taught and a number of non-denominational Christian ministries down here teach this, Satan's pride was both the original sin and the cause thereof. Sounds contradictory I know, but the way the story goes, Satan had worked his way into the high position he held and was quite proud of it. This, in and of itself was not the sin though. Being in such a high position, he became privy to God's overall plan. That's when he let pride get the better of him and rebelled. Thus pride became the original sin. He also convinced a 3rd of the angels to be prideful as well and rebel with him. The other 2 thirds did not side with Satan, but except for a select few, 7000 I believe, they did noting to stop the rebellion. This became part of the original sin and was passed on.
    That's more or less the way it's taught down here. Satan moved up in the ranks and assumed he would one day take God's place. When he found out that wasn't the case, all hell broke loose!
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2015
  10. waggindraggin

    waggindraggin Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    8
    I think I 'Was taught' the same as AussieThoughts.

    There is something I can imagine that could develop out of Judaism into the idea of 'Original sin' through the Christian lineage. Cutting away pride is symbolized in sacrifices where fat is cut from meat and in circumcision, and it represents developments inside the person. I image that in ancient times as the Jewish student grows into maturity they achieve a distinctive nature, and this is seen as the difference between a Jewish person and a non-Jewish person. So there is this expected difference that correlates with our modern idea of what a holy person is like relative to a normal person. This for a Jewish person (what would have been in the past I think) the ideal which their religion was taking them towards, but in Christianity there is a shedding of some of the requirements of particular Jewish practices. Rather then a progression towards Judaism there is something different as that progression towards Judaism is no longer seen as necessity. For example kosher food is no longer a requirement, and this requirement is dropped very early on in Christian circles. In other words many previously 'Jewish' activities are seen as extraneous to the goal of achieving that holy nature which various Jewish groups pursue. In general there is among Christians suddenly no difference between the Jew and the non Jew, so all of these Jewish behaviors such as not eating ham are no longer regarded as necessary. So there is no longer a difference for Christians, and this corresponds I think with what today is called 'Original sin' though for most it has gotten a completely new meaning. All of this is mainly just...guessing and prodding.
     
  11. BigJoeNobody

    BigJoeNobody Professional Argument Attractor

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    121
    If I followed you correctly, I disagree with the conclusion of loss of requirements, but overall understand where you are coming from.

    Overall is it a unanimous idea that the Christian idea that Jesus (PBUH) had to die to makeup for the sins of Adam (PBUH) is not a thing? Which is where I was going with this originally.
     
  12. Namaste Jesus

    Namaste Jesus Praise the Lord and Enjoy the Chai Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    3,319
    Likes Received:
    790
    This may clear things up a bit or confuse them further as the case may be. A lot more to it than just the sins of Adam. Of particular note is the passage on how sin began. Sounds a lot like what Aussie was saying. I have no affiliation with this church by the way and am unfamiliar with their teachings. I just stumbled onto the page and thought it interesting.

    http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/what-was-the-purpose-of-christs-death
     
  13. BigJoeNobody

    BigJoeNobody Professional Argument Attractor

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    121
    It is clear after reading that reference that I made a good move (for me at least) as I read the same passages and got a completely different understanding... I'm not sure it applies to the question, but it is certainly a better explanation than the "Original sin" theory passed off in many circles here.
     
  14. earl

    earl ?

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,623
    Likes Received:
    18
    Actually, Thomas, my notion of "original sin" is based on Buddhism in that Buddhism posits that there are 6 worlds or rather realms 1 can be born into based on the level of one's spiritual awareness, some subhuman, some "godlike." They feel the human level is the 1 most auspicious for achieving enlightenment given the right balance of suffering and consciousness-the god realms being too easy. So it is that each realm is distinguished by its own particular range of conscious awareness and what I meant is that being born into our realm implies we all start out with a particular range of conscious abilities as a starting point which are relatively limited compared to the endpoint. Though Buddhists do not employ the notion of sin, they would use the phrase karma vikapa to indicate forces that bring us to a certain point in time-space. So, I'm taking liberties in saying that "original sin" is the general karma vikapa of consciousness-time-space which gives us our relatively limited starting point, the human condition. We wouldn't be here if we didn't have that karma/"original sin."
     
    Thomas likes this.
  15. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,607
    Likes Received:
    2,047
    Yes. It's a 'spirit and letter' thing.

    Well Paul saw this profoundly, that if God is God, then God is not just the God of the Jews, nor do the Jews have exclusive access to God.

    Well it got its meaning in relation to the Christian idea of Divine Union, or theosis. Then you have the idea that what keeps man apart from God is man, not God. And the cause of this was Adam's error – the sin of the Primordial Couple – and it is this sin – this self-willed 'missing the mark – that determined the relationship from then on. So in that sense 'Original Sin' is the burden we all have to carry, the rejection of God in favour of the self, and humanity has been oriented to self from Adam on.

    Whether the sin is original or not in light of Satan's fall (being prior to Adam's fall) is semantics and irrelevant. For one, it's the same sin in angels as it is in man: Pride. For the other, that Satan fell does not mean man would fall, man is not burdened by Satan's sin and is capable of resisting Satan and his minions. So Adam's sin constitutes the original sin, as far as man is concerned. But sin was always a possible, from the moment God endowed His creature with free will.
     
  16. bahous

    bahous New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2015
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    there is no original sin.

    if there were original sin Moses books would mention it
     
  17. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,883
    Likes Received:
    1,972
    Yes original sin is a Christian concept. Are you trying to learn about Christianity or discredit it?
     
  18. arthra

    arthra Baha'i

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,666
    Likes Received:
    142
    I'm pretty sure that Baha'is reject the concept of original sin accepted by many Christians.... We believe man has essentially been created good and has no inherent "sin".. It's true that as God grants freewill to man there is a choice and sometimes man chooses to deny God or the teachings that are right for him. There is also no "evil force" at war with God we believe.
     
  19. Aussie Thoughts

    Aussie Thoughts Just my 2 cents

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    413
    No Satan in Baha'i or Satan is not evil?
     
  20. BigJoeNobody

    BigJoeNobody Professional Argument Attractor

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    121
    In Islam (to which I believe Baha'is Borrow the view) We believe Satan is the influencer of evil, yet still bends to the will of Allah when commanded. The "war" isn't as much of a Good vs Evil or God vs Satan, but rather a battle of choices and actions in oneself.
     

Share This Page