On the Christian doctrine of original sin

[BrentRichards]

I would be interested in hearing (reading) how you seperate the doctrine of Original sin from a literal reading of the Garden of Eden narrative? (maybe you don't see the need? I don't know) But how do you understand Orginal Sinfulness if there was no LITERAL Fall? If you read my anthropology post above you know that I believe that we humans evolved to be the people we are (evolution being a tool in the hands of a sovereign God, of course, but evolution nonetheless). I don't believe that the world was created in seven literal days or that the world is only 4,000 plus years old. So how do I make sense of the Fall in that context? I DO believe in a Fallen world, but I'm not at all sure HOW I do. can you help me, Oh Calvinist demi-god?

New thread, as threatened ... er, promised.

(added) WARNING: If you're not interested in Christian theology, you may not think much of this thread... I think Dave and I are just trying to prove we've been to seminary (wink) ...but you're welcome to chime in anyway. Post number 4 below has a couple "Cliff's Notes" (actually, "Brent's Notes") on the doctrine we're discussing.

[scott snedeker]

Originally Posted by BrentRichards

New thread, as threatened ... er, promised.

First Separated has two a's

Second......Umm what is the question?

Could you translate for my pointy pagan ears?

[BrentRichards]

I will freely admit I am in a tension on this ... I had a lot of biology in undergrad, and am still an amateur naturalist (no, NOT naturist, get that picture out of your head if you know what's good for you) ... which means I've spent enough time with evolutionary theory to know that it's pretty darn solid. The (literal) creationists who try to introduce "problems" with the theory as if these problems could eliminate the whole body of scientific knowledge are, to say the least, a bit off. I am definitely a "directed evolutionist" ... I would have used the term "intelligent design" some years ago, but it's been co-opted by people whose beliefs on the matter don't come very close to mine, so ...

Short answer then is, yes, I see the Genesis account as figurative. In fact, I am a major OT figurativist (I just made that word up ... did I get close to a real one?). I think the OT is largely made up of stories meant to illustrate the nature of God and his relationship to His people (Redemptive History). Because of that, I struggle with a strict Calvinist "Federal Headship" idea of original sin. I haven't, admittedly, worked out my balance on this one yet.

The working base of my original sin doctrine (and this may not be terribly orthodox) is the "like begets like" concept ... an imperfect and decaying world (which this is, even biologically) cannot beget perfect beings. Even if the decay (fall) didn't begin with a single, literal individual, it is here now, courtesy of "the First Adam" ... that is, the humanity that came before us.

Since, as I believe it, Genesis doesn't literally tell us how we got here, I suspect it doesn't literally tell us how we were imbued with spirit ... did God at some point in evolution decide: "This one is now a human, I will breathe my spirit into him" (a literal Adam) ... or was it something more along the lines of (and this is my leaning, speculative as it is) a development of self-awareness and God-awareness worked through the same evolutionary processes? (Which, I think, is no less well described by God "breathing His spirit" into his Creation? If the latter is the case, then with that awakening spirit, it would seem, would come awakening sin and decay, as well. In short, if Creation was not a discrete (time-wise) "fiat" event, need the Fall be one?

No, I don't believe God is Thermodynamics, if that's what this is sounding like. But I definitely don't believe we have to adhere to a 7 day young earth literalist model to take God's Creation, man's spirit and sin, and the whole of redemptive history seriously.

Again, this is muddy for me, and pretty far afield from my evangelical and Calvinist roots, but I believe it is both evangelical and Reformed to struggle to make sense from ALL the truth at our disposal.

Make any sense? Calling Cardinal Jimenez? Or at least The Church Police? "'Ello, 'ello, 'ello, what's all this then, AMEN?"

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by scott snedeker

First Separated has two a's

Second......Umm what is the question?

Could you translate for my pointy pagan ears?

Actually, suspected the topic wouldn't interest too many who don't accept the doctrine of original sin, but here's what you'll probably need to know to follow this thread:

Original sin, in its most literal form, assumes this:

God created Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve sinned by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Adam and Eve were therefore banned from the Garden of Eden, and from access to the Tree of Life.
In sinning, Adam is thought to "stand in" for all of humanity that followed ("Federal Headship")
Therefore, all people are born sinful, bearing the mark of Adam's (Original) Sin.

The question Dave is asking, then, is if you don't accept the Creation narrative as literal (which neither he nor I do), what does that do to the rest of the doctrine above?

It's the kind of "intramural debate" we Christian theologian types like to trot out to torture ourselves with now and again ... but naturally, all are welcome to participate!

[Progo35]

In replying I have to preface my words by saying that I take the Bible as literal and figurative. If the Bible says that there was a man and a woman named Adam and Eve and they ate the forbidden fruit, than I'm willing to believe that they did. That all comes down to divorcing logic from faith in deciding what you are going to believe. Faith, by its very nature, is a belief that can not be scientifically proven-otherwise, it would no longer be "faith."

However, in addition to being a literal account, I believe that the Fall is also a metaphorical depiction of what happens when people stop listening to God: they hurt themselves and have to live with the consequences. God warned them about the consequences, he was grieved by their fall, but He gave them a choice about what they were going to do. Similarly, the Bible advises us not to have sex outside of marriage, not because God is trying to screw us over, but because of what happens when we do-we leave ourselves vulnerable to emotional exploitation, pregnancy, STIs, etc.

So, if you take the account of Genesis figuratively, you could still come up with the Original Sin doctrine, because it shows that even in a perfect paradise, Adam and Eve, aka humanity, acted according to their own desires instead of God's, which is a pretty good definition of sin.

[Pablo Rafael]

Originally Posted by Progo35

In replying I have to preface my words by saying that I take the Bible as literal and figurative. If the Bible says that there was a man and a woman named Adam and Eve and they ate the forbidden fruit, than I'm willing to believe that they did. That all comes down to divorcing logic from faith in deciding what you are going to believe. Faith, by its very nature, is a belief that can not be scientifically proven-otherwise, it would no longer be "faith."

Progo,

I appreciate your post. (It is close to what I believe, so it has to be good, right?)
I think that the Bible needs to be looked at literally and figuratively. To see it only one way loses meaning.

Coming from a Lutheran / Catholic background I feel that original sin is not some guilt that permeated down through the generations. It is however, the tendency of people to sin. No one since Christ Himself has been perfect. We all make those bad choices.

Not to be overlooked is that we were created in the image of God. We are the face of God that many people see. Though we make bad choices, we also have the freedom to make good choices. Original sin is erased by Christ's death and resurecction. We are free to live lives that glorify God. When we live lives of love, we show forth the image of God that is in all of us.

Too often people think that original sin means that you have to pay for your parent's and grandparent's sin. That is not how I read the Bible at all on the subject. It is not inherited guilt but simpy a statement that we will all sin, no one is without sin.

Why God has let us have the freedom to choose to do good or evil puzzles me to no end. I will just have to be content that He knows more than I do.

Brent, I appreciated your posts too. I don't want to ignore what you have to say. You are a great asset to these forums.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[Eugene]

Since, as I believe it, Genesis doesn't literally tell us how we got here, I suspect it doesn't literally tell us how we were imbued with spirit ...

Well then it seems hardly worth the bother of reading, and your guess is as good as mine. Who needs a religion that can't answer questions of origin and destiny?

[u-dog]

with all due respect beloved friends, this thread originated with my question to a fellow Calvinist and a fellow "modernist" I want to stick with my original question.

I do not believe that Genesis is a literal account of the Creation.
If you DO believe that it is, thats fine... but go play some place else for a little while OK?

But having said that I have to respond to one thing that Progo said"

However, in addition to being a literal account, I believe that the Fall is also a metaphorical depiction of what happens when people stop listening to God: they hurt themselves and have to live with the consequences. .

The story of the Fall is NOT about disobedience in general but a particular form of disobedience, a kind of FUNDAMENTAL disobedience -- namely IDOLATRY. The forbidden tree is "The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". The serpent convinces Eve to eat by saying that the only reason that God forbids eating it is that God knows that humans will be just like God if they do. Ergo, Eve eats because she wishes to be "just like God" IDOLATRY not "naughtiness" is the original sin.

Consequently, Jesus life, death, and resurrection must be salvific because it somehow restores the proper relationship between humanity and God which was disrupted by the IDOLATRY of Adam and Eve... an Idolatry which somehow has distorted the fabric of Creation itself.

SO...

IF Genesis is NOT a literal account of Creation OR the FALL how did human beings come to have this capacity for idolatry in the first place? Were we created with this imperfection as part of our matrix? If so, then is God responsible for human Idolatry? If not... where did it come from?

Here is a somewhat fuzzy stab at a theological anthropology of original sin and I would like to hear what people think of it -- but ONLY THOSE PEOPLE WHO CAN ... EVEN FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT ... ACCEPT MY PREMISE THAT GENESIS IS NOT LITERAL. If you can't go there with me? then just shut and listen OK? Maybe go start a parallel thread where we can all assume the Genesis IS literal.

OK, here goes:

1. Humanity evolves from lower animals (under God's sovereign authority and direction) to have a variety of traits and abilities that select for genetic and biological survival. Among these traits is a fear/suspicion/hatred for the "other" and a tendency toward violence. These things are not evil or sinful in this primieval state because they result in humanity's thriving and spreading globally.

2. However these genetically successful creatures are not God's final objective. God intends them to become spiritual creatures who live in loving, obedient, relationship with God and with each other and with the rest of Creation. At a certain point the very characteristics which resulted in the success and survival of humanity (and which were therefore "good") become a liability in phase 2, the fashioning of spiritual creatures to live in harmony with God and others. The traits which brought phase 1 to a successful conclusion now are impeding the successful conclusion of phase 2.

3. These genetic traits/characteristics which WERE good but are NOW evil/sinful, ARE the original sin. The particular point in time when the creator moves from Phase 1 (biological evolutionary success of the "earth creature" Ha'Adama) to Phase 2 (the spiritual evolution of the children of God) can be thought of as "The Garden of Eden moment" --- The moment when the "Good" creation of a good God becomes tainted. Since Phase two is still in progress and we are still acting out of our biological nature, still fearing the other, still trying to be God, still hating, still killing. We are still "tainted" by sin and Creation is Still "groaning" (ie global warming, polution, mass extinctions etc).

4. The center piece of God's plan for Phase two is the incarnation of the Word of God and his self sacrifice and generous giving of himself for "the other" the outsider, the foreigner, the undeserving... and his resurrection and victory over the ultimate animal reality... DEATH.

Ok... so thats it. Andrew? Brent? Others who are willing to argue within my parameters? what do you think?

Dave

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by Eugene

Well then it seems hardly worth the bother of reading, and your guess is as good as mine. Who needs a religion that can't answer questions of origin and destiny?

Saying the Bible (Genesis specifically) doesn't answer the question of origin (I said nothing about destiny, that's your addition) LITERALLY does NOT mean it doesn't answer it MEANINGFULLY. If God only cared to give us instructions, the Bible would read like a VCR manual. Thankfully, it does not.

Beyond that, I'm with Dave. Please don't hijack this thread! Play nice, people!

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by u-dog

with all due respect beloved friends, this thread originated with my question to a fellow Calvinist and a fellow "modernist" I want to stick with my original question.

I do not believe that Genesis is a literal account of the Creation.
If you DO believe that it is, thats fine... but go play some place else for a little while OK?

But having said that I have to respond to one thing that Progo said"




The story of the Fall is NOT about disobedience in general but a particular form of disobedience, a kind of FUNDAMENTAL disobedience -- namely IDOLATRY. The forbidden tree is "The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". The serpent convinces Eve to eat by saying that the only reason that God forbids eating it is that God knows that humans will be just like God if they do. Ergo, Eve eats because she wishes to be "just like God" IDOLATRY not "naughtiness" is the original sin.

Consequently, Jesus life, death, and resurrection must be salvific because it somehow restores the proper relationship between humanity and God which was disrupted by the IDOLATRY of Adam and Eve... an Idolatry which somehow has distorted the fabric of Creation itself.

SO...

IF Genesis is NOT a literal account of Creation OR the FALL how did human beings come to have this capacity for idolatry in the first place? Were we created with this imperfection as part of our matrix? If so, then is God responsible for human Idolatry? If not... where did it come from?

Here is a somewhat fuzzy stab at a theological anthropology of original sin and I would like to hear what people think of it -- but ONLY THOSE PEOPLE WHO CAN ... EVEN FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT ... ACCEPT MY PREMISE THAT GENESIS IS NOT LITERAL. If you can't go there with me? then just shut and listen OK? Maybe go start a parallel thread where we can all assume the Genesis IS literal.

OK, here goes:

1. Humanity evolves from lower animals (under God's sovereign authority and direction) to have a variety of traits and abilities that select for genetic and biological survival. Among these traits is a fear/suspicion/hatred for the "other" and a tendency toward violence. These things are not evil or sinful in this primieval state because they result in humanity's thriving and spreading globally.

2. However these genetically successful creatures are not God's final objective. God intends them to become spiritual creatures who live in loving, obedient, relationship with God and with each other and with the rest of Creation. At a certain point the very characteristics which resulted in the success and survival of humanity (and which were therefore "good") become a liability in phase 2, the fashioning of spiritual creatures to live in harmony with God and others. The traits which brought phase 1 to a successful conclusion now are impeding the successful conclusion of phase 2.

3. These genetic traits/characteristics which WERE good but are NOW evil/sinful, ARE the original sin. The particular point in time when the creator moves from Phase 1 (biological evolutionary success of the "earth creature" Ha'Adama) to Phase 2 (the spiritual evolution of the children of God) can be thought of as "The Garden of Eden moment" --- The moment when the "Good" creation of a good God becomes tainted. Since Phase two is still in progress and we are still acting out of our biological nature, still fearing the other, still trying to be God, still hating, still killing. We are still "tainted" by sin and Creation is Still "groaning" (ie global warming, polution, mass extinctions etc).

4. The center piece of God's plan for Phase two is the incarnation of the Word of God and his self sacrifice and generous giving of himself for "the other" the outsider, the foreigner, the undeserving... and his resurrection and victory over the ultimate animal reality... DEATH.

Ok... so thats it. Andrew? Brent? Others who are willing to argue within my parameters? what do you think?

Dave

Hmmm... I'm intrigued. My initial reaction is that this may be a helpful framework. I must mull. (Now where's my ginger and allspice?)

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by u-dog

I do not believe that Genesis is a literal account of the Creation.

Okay, so far. Humanity wasn't around for the creation - it was a later insertion by God into the order of things - therefore, humans could not develop a literal account.

Likewise, if God by divine revelation was to convey the events of creation to humanity at a later time, God would still be talking to cultural "infants" in that concepts for these early people would be limited to what was known and understandable. How do you teach small children - through story. I believe God to be the seminal parent, so God would be the seminal communicator to as yet undeveloped and incomplete humans - this, I believe has not changed. We are still not perfected in humankind and cannot grasp the mind and will of God completely, just in elementary ways - so God communicates in ways we can understand.

The story of the Fall is NOT about disobedience in general but ... IDOLATRY. Ergo, [Culture] eats because [it] wishes to be "just like God" IDOLATRY not "naughtiness" is the original sin.

Idolatry = haugthiness, not naughtiness. (Fair?)

I hope I'm not being picky here. Hav'vah, translated as "Eve", only occurs twice in Genesis, and the word "EVE" does not appear again until the New Testament. The closest literal translation of this word is "tent village" which, in my opinion at least, would serve as the closest thing to culture at the time. Culture, in this sense, is portrayed as leading humanity astray, and is it any wonder that in that day and age (or now, for that matter) it is attributed with feminine traits. Female=bad, male=good - where have we seen that crappe before.

I am sorry, but this reeks to me of humanity's capacity to "blame" someone else for bad stuff. It wasn't humanity - it was the culture. It wasn't me, it was them - ooh, better yet, it was her. She made me do it because she was weak and gave in to temptation. As usual, this kind of finger pointing just makes the pointer look even more pathetic.

Consequently, Jesus life, death, and resurrection must be salvific because it somehow restores the proper relationship between humanity and God which was disrupted by the IDOLATRY of Adam and Eve... an Idolatry which somehow has distorted the fabric of Creation itself.

Okay, no problem.

IF Genesis is NOT a literal account of Creation OR the FALL how did human beings come to have this capacity for idolatry in the first place? Were we created with this imperfection as part of our matrix? If so, then is God responsible for human Idolatry? If not... where did it come from?

Here is a somewhat fuzzy stab at a theological anthropology of original sin and I would like to hear what people think of it -- but ONLY THOSE PEOPLE WHO CAN ... EVEN FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT ... ACCEPT MY PREMISE THAT GENESIS IS NOT LITERAL. If you can't go there with me? then just shut and listen OK? Maybe go start a parallel thread where we can all assume the Genesis IS literal.

OK, here goes:

1. Humanity evolves from lower animals ... to have a variety of traits and abilities that select for genetic and biological survival ... fear/ suspicion/ hatred for the "other" and a tendency toward violence. These things ... result in humanity's thriving and spreading globally.

2. However these genetically successful creatures are not God's final objective. God intends them to become spiritual creatures who live in loving, obedient, relationship with God and with each other and with the rest of Creation. The traits which brought phase 1 to a successful conclusion now are impeding the successful conclusion of phase 2.

3. These genetic traits/characteristics which WERE good but are NOW evil/sinful, ARE the original sin. [We] are still acting out of our biological nature, still fearing the other, still trying to be God, still hating, still killing. We are still "tainted" by sin and Creation is Still "groaning" (ie global warming, polution, mass extinctions etc).

4. The center piece of God's plan for Phase two is the incarnation of the Word of God and his self sacrifice and generous giving of himself for "the other" the outsider, the foreigner, the undeserving... and his resurrection and victory over the ultimate animal reality... DEATH.

Since I brought up Daniel Quinn in another thread, I'll use another of his concepts - leavers and takers.

In God's love, God created humanity (now I don't particularly care if that was an instantaneous creation or a development from single celled creatures over millions of years - to me it's irrelevant how God chose to create.) Since God did not want automatons, but rather wanted humans to love and revere God and all that God had created of their own volition, God took the leap of faith to imbue humankind with free-will - self-determination. In healthy child-rearing, we emulate this process with our children.

God placed (or they developed) humans in the world of God's creation, providing a system which would satisfy all of humanity's needs. The order, I believe, was relatively simple. Use what you need, leave the rest. God created "leavers" - people who existed in the "paradise", used what it had to offer, but only according to their need, not their greed.

Humanity, however, ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Humans took it upon themselves to arrange creation hierarchically in terms of use and value to themselves. Humans began to judge "value", rather than ascribe inherent value to all God created, and so doing took on the mantel of God in determining what deserved to live or die, to flourish or flounder. Value was ascribed based on usefulness to the sense of "values" that were inherently self-serving. Humanity started to want to accumulate - moved from leavers to "takers".

Along with "taking" or accumulating comes all manner of competitive ideologies - many with negative consequences. Now, unless we were to value ourselves as "less" than God intended, we needed the ultimate scapegoat, along with ultimate excuse. Enter the serpent (personified evil), feminized (or other-ized) weakness, and "original sin". Translate - I couldn't help it. Rationalize - God wants me to survive, so I have to overcome the negatives to continue to accumulate - that's what God wants. End result - Christianized capitalism (oh, sorry, that's too big a leap, as yet).

We created to live in a world in which we could continue to co-create - care for and ensure that God's creation flourished. We, however, placed values on what God created - values decided solely on usefulness and worth to us - not God. We re-created (not co-created) God creation to suit our purposes, and then decided that since we have done that, it must be what God intended. Ultimately, whether you call it Satan, original sin, or whatever, we lay the blame at God's feet because we cannot or will not accept responsibility for our own actions. With the arguments that say we cannot return to a "leaver" culture, because culture as we know it will collapse, we place supreme value not on God's creation, but our own. We make the base assumption that what we are and have and do was God's intent, instead of assuming that we have constantly and consistently sinned against God's intent.

I would proffer that original sin is self-interest, and that it was not a necessary component of living in God's creation. It has, however, become critical to surviving in our own creation. And, to pacify and justify ourselves, we decide that that is what God wanted all along.

Idolatry is a result of self-interest, not visa versa.

[BrentRichards]

Welcome Andy ... knew you'd join us here sooner or later ... tempting little theological carrot ...

[u-dog]

Ok... Thanks for sharing Andy... anyone else?

LOL... just kidding! I am sick today -- praying to the porcelain goddess regularly so I'm not on the top of my game and that was pretty heavy stuff. I have the energy to respond to a couple of things.

1. I was NOT trying to dump on poor Eve ... tradition has done more than enough of that. The narrative itself makes clear that blaming Eve is not the point. the pattern of the narrative is

1) snake tempts Eve => Eve sins=> Eve tempts Adam => Adam sins

2) God questions Adam => Adam blames Eve => Eve blames the snake.

3) God punishes the snake => God punishes Eve => God punishes Adam.

No way you can blame the feminine for this mess without taking major scissors to the text.


2. In comparing your solution to mine, is it accurate to equate hunter/gatherer culture with "Leaver" and agricultural/pastoral/civilized culture with "taker"?


There's more but I have to either go lie down or puke again

Dave

[Pablo Rafael]

Originally Posted by u-dog

1. I was NOT trying to dump on poor Eve ... tradition has done more than enough of that. The narrative itself makes clear that blaming Eve is not the point. the pattern of the narrative is

1) snake tempts Eve => Eve sins=> Eve tempts Adam => Adam sins

2) God questions Adam => Adam blames Eve => Eve blames the snake.

3) God punishes the snake => God punishes Eve => God punishes Adam.

No way you can blame the feminine for this mess without taking major scissors to the text.

I guess what we really have to know when deciding whether to blame women or men for this mess of sin is the answer to the #1 question of all time.
Was it a girl snake or a boy snake?

[andrewlittle]

Androgynous. Maybe the original egg wasn't too warm or too cold, so it didn't develop gender.

[Daniel]

The Fall. Original Sin.

I stopped believing in these things many years ago, but that doesn't mean that I don't think they don't mean something. My sense is that the Creation Story is very much saying something, but like a code, one has to ponder its meaning. This is what one doesn't do the more literal minded one is. At least, that's what I've observed.

Of course, I can trace my thoughts about this to the writings of Joseph Campbell. He clued me into the observation that the Judeo-Christian story of the beginning of everything doesn't stand alone among creation narratives. In fact, any culture that's been around long enough has this kind of story. What's fascinating to me is the similarities between them.

The other root of my thinking comes from Buddhism and other non-Christian perspectives.

To put it simply, I find myself positing that Adam and Eve being thrown out of the garden is a metaphor for a human being who las lost touch with its full awareness of what it is, that is, part and parcel of Love itself. Some might call it the awareness of enlightement, where the small I is encompassed in the larger Self, the drop of water in the ocean.

Another way of saying it: the Fall is what it means to have an ego with all the attendant concerns: "Enough about me....what do you think of me?"

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by Daniel

To put it simple, I find myself positing that Adam and Eve being thrown out of the garden is a metaphor for a human being who las lost touch with its full awareness of what it is, that is, part and parcel of Love itself. Some might call it the awareness of enlightement, where the small I is encompassed in the larger Self, the drop of water in the ocean.

Another way of saying it: the Fall is what it means to have an ego with all the attendant concerns: "Enough about me....what do you think of me?"

Are you sure you're Buddhist? This is pretty Christian orthodox! [grin]

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

Androgynous. Maybe the original egg wasn't too warm or too cold, so it didn't develop gender.

Oh, c'mon, we all know snakes are phallic symbols ... so blame the guys!

[BrentRichards]

Andrew ... your take of Adam as Humanity and Eve as Culture is fascinating (it would be the original "Nature vs. Nurture" argument) ... has someone written on this, or is it an Uncle Andy original?

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by BrentRichards

Andrew ... your take of Adam as Humanity and Eve as Culture is fascinating (it would be the original "Nature vs. Nurture" argument) ... has someone written on this, or is it an Uncle Andy original?

Yep, that's the product of a sick mind.

I can blame Quinn for the "leaver/taker" stuff, though.

And, yes, Dave, leaver/taker would be roughly equivalent to the hunter/gather vs cultivator stuff. I think we're talking similar languages.