Do you believe in original sin?

[BurtWorm]

Poll question: Do you believe in original sin?

How about just "sin?"

Poll result (54 votes)
I believe in Original Sin.	(9 votes, 17%)	Vote
I don't believe in Original Sin, but I do believe there is something called sin.	(10 votes, 19%)	Vote
I don't know about Original Sin, but there is such a thing as sin.	(0 votes, 0%)	Vote
I don't believe there is such a thing as sin.	(28 votes, 52%)	Vote
Don't know	(1 votes, 2%)	Vote
Other	(6 votes, 11%)	Vote

[oustemnow]

1. Yes, and I'm all for it!

The more original you can make the sin, the better.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

2. Oh, I didn't know they were talking about "that" kind of sin.

Can I change my choice?

[saltpoint]

3. Nope. I think it's a control mechanism and undermines an

individual's and a society's quest for self-discovery and awareness.

Recommended: Matthew Fox's ORIGINAL BLESSING.

[Hardrada]

4. If Original Sin = Sex as the Brady character said in

Inherit the Wind then of course I believe in it!

[Hardrada]

5. And also espouse it, I forgot to add.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Eve was framed!!!!!

Other than that, I don't believe in sin except metaphorically. Humans are fallible and make mistakes of varying degrees. Sin is often categorized in terms of acts that involve vice, pleasure, and/or greed. I don't know if sin per se can exist without the inherent moral component.

[bryant69]

7. This can be a complex doctrine

Do I believe in the story of Adam and Eve largely as written in the bible? Yes.

Does that imply some sort of fall or original sin? Yes.

Does that sin condemn all children throughout eternity to have the stain of evil on their souls? No I don't believe that. It's not just to condemn children simply for being born.

Did the fall or the original sin end the Garden of Eden, placing Adam and Eve in the world we now live in, full of disease, suffering, and evil? Yes. In that sense than we are condemned by their sin, but since I don't believe that childbirth was possible in the garden of eden, well, it would have been nice for Adam and Eve to stay in the Garden but not so nice for the rest of us. Plus of course disease suffering and the potential for evil (i.e. free will) are probably necessary for us to grow.

That's my take.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BurtWorm]

8. You believe literally in the Genesis story?

Just to be clear. You believe there was a first man and a first woman named Adam and Eve and they appeared one after the other in the Garden of Eden?

[bryant69]

9. I think there's probably moer to the story than what is

presented in the bible, but yes, in general terms I believe it.

Bryant

[BurtWorm]

11. Do you not believe humans are descended from a previous species?

[bryant69]

12. OK let me say a few other things first

I oppose teaching Creationism in the schools, but I would also oppose teaching the Evolution proves or suggests the non-existance of a creator. Creationism isn't science; you should teach science in science class. It might not have been necessary to underline this, but better safe than sorry.

As for whether or not humans are descended from a previous species, I'm afraid I don't know the specific mechanics of the creation. I wasn't there. I think that God probably used scientific processes to accomplish this - including evolution. But that's just what I think; I don't know. What I do believe is that God is a creating God and that the story of Adam and Eve happened, largely as written in the bible, although, like I said, a lot of details, particularly scientific ones, aren't in the account.

The Bible answers religious questions - when it comes to questions of Science or History, Lingustics or Economics, it's not as good.

Bryant

[BurtWorm]

13. So Adam and Eve may not be historic figures?

Are you suggesting they may be real in some sense other than a material one? Or are you inclined to believe there were two historic parents of the species named Adam and Eve?

[bryant69]

14. I believe they were historic figures

They actually existed, they were actually in the garden of eden, they actually ate the fruit, and they were actually kicked out of the garden of eden, to live in the world we now live in.

It literally happened.

Bryant

[BurtWorm]

15. Then, in your view, there were no Neandethals? No australopithecines?

Language didn't exist on earth before Adam and Eve?

[bryant69]

16. As for the first two questions

I'm inclined to say there probably were. We've found fossil records.

As for the last question, not in the same sense. There probably was communication - heck dogs can communicate. But the language Adam learned from God was a different kind of language; it was a perfect language.

I'm not sure what the ultimate purpose of this questioning is.

[BurtWorm]

17. It's to help me understand how an intelligent person can literally

believe in Adam and Eve. You seem to border on believing the Bible story is literally true (which would seem to rule out belief that homo sapiens are decendents of previous species and first appeared in Southern Africa about 200,000 years ago and trod the same earth for thousands of years with other human species before winding up alone among them), and believing it is true in some other more metaphoric sense, which does not preclude belief that the scientific story of humanity is correct. You're so close to literal belief, however, that your beliefs are incoherent to me.

I'm not trying to criticize your beliefs, however. Just trying to understand them and not quite succeeding.

[bryant69]

18. Well I suspect that's because i don't have all the pieces to the puzzle

I mean we have the fossil record which I buy, and we have the religious truths encompased in the creation story, which I believe. But I don't know how they fit together exactly. I'd like to someday.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BurtWorm]

20. What is the difference between religious truth and natural historic truth?

Or is there a difference?

Personally, I believe there's a huge difference. Religion makes more sense to me as part of the natural history of human culture rather than as something that preceded it. Whatever truths it contains are different from the kinds of truths one can verify through evidence of the senses--just as poetic truths are different. Thus, it makes no sense to me to accept the word of the bible as literally true, unless "literally" means something less concrete than "actually." Adam and Eve, then, for me, are not historic people but metaphors for the origins of human being. The "fall" was not an actual historic event, but a metaphor for our species' separation from nature via culture. It follows from this that, for me, God (or Yahweh) is a metaphor for the mystery of what preceded humans, life on earth and the earth itself. To me, this is how to reconcile the Biblical story with the fossil evidence. The fossils tell the historic truth; the bible is purely metaphoric.

[bryant69]

22. That's the essense of it - Metaphoric ends up meaning

"Didn't really happen." And I can't accept that.

Bryant

[BurtWorm]

23. What is so hard to accept?

And again, I ask because I really want to understand.

[bryant69]

25. I suppose the real question is

What do I lose if I decide that the Creation didn't really happen and that Adam and Eve is a myth? What would I be giving up? What spiritual doctrines would be negated by cutting out the fall of Adam? And what would I gain in return?

I said at the beginning it could be a complex discussion - trotting out the spiritual truths that spring from the creation, the Garden, and the fall, is a bit more work than I can do just now, I'm afraid. I'd want to be complete. I'll have to think about it.

Bryant

[BurtWorm]

28. I'm interested in that kind of thought process.

Having gone through something like it (though not quite) a few years ago. Granted, I haven't considered myself a Christian in a long, long while, and I stopped believing in a personal God not long after I stopped thinking of myself as a Christian. But it wasn't until very recently that I came to confront what my beliefs really were. It was an interesting, exciting process.

[bryant69]

29. Well I've been confronting my beliefs since I was 18

It's unlikely that I'm going to come up with the answer that it's all a lot of bunk.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BurtWorm]

34. Unlikely, perhaps.

But not impossible.

I actually think that if you really want to reconcile your desire to believe in the letter of the Bible with your acceptance of the implications of the fossil record, you're in for some moment of epistemological crisis. I don't believe you can literally believe in both: The fossil record and Bible tell two totally different stories of the origins of human life.

[cyborg_jim]

51. If it didn't happen it didn't happen

You seem to be pretty much saying you're quite happy to construct a model of reality to your particular preferences. Clearly you can see the power of science to provide accurate models of reality so you aren't able to simply dismiss evolution out of hand even though it clearly causes some pretty hefty problems for the story in Genesis 2.

Sounds like some pretty heavy cognative dissonance to me.

[trotsky]

21. Evolution does suggest that a creator is unnecessary.

The known principles of mutation, natural selection, etc. are adequate to explain the variety of life we see today. No, evolution does not and will never say that gods CANNOT exist, but it couldn't be any clearer that one was not necessary for the origin of species. Are you OK with that? Or are you going to disapprove of schools teaching evolution now?

Like BurtWorm, I'm fascinated by an otherwise highly intelligent person who believes in a literal Adam & Eve and Garden of Eden. Where is the Garden now? Is it still guarded by a flaming sword?

[bryant69]

24. I guess i was unclear

I thought by saying I opposed teaching creationism, that would imply I was in favor of teaching evolution. But I can see I was wrong. So let me repeat this - I believe in teaching evolution in science class. Is that clear enough for you?

I read some of the interviews by Dawkins I think his name in, in the Salon one he pretty clearly seemed to say that his study of evolution had lead him to atheism. --> http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/10/13/dawkins/index...

"Well, I'm not sure it's a logical thing. I call it consciousness raising. I think the most powerful reason for believing in a supreme being is the argument for design. Living things in particular look complicated, look beautiful, look elegant, look as though they've been designed. We are all accustomed to thinking that if something looks designed, it is designed. Therefore, it's really no wonder that before Darwin came along, just about everybody was a theist. Darwin blew that argument out of the water. We now have a much more elegant and parsimonious explanation for the existence of life.

So the big reason for believing in God used to be the argument for biological design. Darwin destroyed that argument. He didn't destroy the parallel argument from cosmology: Where did the universe come from? Where did the laws of physics come from? But he raised our consciousness to the power of science to explain things. And he made it unsafe for anyone in the future to resort automatically and uncritically to a designer just because they don't immediately have an explanation for something. So when people say, "I can't see how the universe could have come into being without God," be very careful because you've had your fingers burned before over biology. That's the consciousness-raising sense in which, I think, Darwinism leads to atheism."

I don't know that i'd be keen on him teaching that in a high school science class, anymore than I want creationism taught there.

As for your last few questions, I don't know where it is now and I don't know where the angel with the flaming sword is.

Bryant

[trotsky]

26. I think that Dawkins quote mirrors pretty well what I said.

Evolution demonstrates that a creator is not necessary. We don't need to invoke a magical being to explain life as we know it. To many people, especially those for whom the Argument from Design is their primary reason for belief, evolution then becomes a proof against the creator. But realize, that's just Dawkins speaking. He doesn't teach high school creation. He can't even influence the American education system at all. No need to get worried.

As for your last few questions, I don't know where it is now and I don't know where the angel with the flaming sword is.

But you believe the garden still exists, and that an angel really does guard it with a sword?

[bryant69]

27. I suppose that that is what the record states

But I don't see the importance of those particular details in the creation/garden story.

[trotsky]

30. Oh I think they're vitally important.

If for no reason other than that actually provides a tangible, verifiable aspect of the biblical story. Find the garden, find the angel, you accomplish everything in one fell swoop: Prove God, prove the Genesis story, prove everything. You shut up the evolutionists, the atheists, and everyone who opposes the literalist fundamentalist interpretation of the bible. Nirvana!

[bryant69]

32. Fundamentalist?

That's kind of a loaded word isn't it?

At any rate, I have no interest in shutting up the evolutionists or the atheists (well most atheists, anyway), and I believe Christians are supposed to live by faith, not by proof. Which implies that the Garden of Eden and the Angel with the flaming sword won't be found.

Bryant

[trotsky]

35. Yes, fundamentalist.

You are holding the words of a sacred text to a literal interpretation.

What about the other ramifications of the creation story? Do you believe that the universe is only about 6000 years old?

[bryant69]

37. I don't believe the universe is only 6,000 years old.

Bryant

[trotsky]

38. Why do you reject that, but believe Adam & Eve were real?

Just trying to understand the thought process. It would appear at this point you are unwilling to reject the parts of the myth that hold "religious meaning." I.e., without a literal Adam & Eve and story of "the fall," you lose the entire basis of the traditional Christian worldview. But lots of Christians think the story of A&E is just allegorical, that it's an account of our evolution as a species moving from "unthinking" animal to moral agent, and realizing the consequences of that. That's pretty significant, isn't it? Wouldn't that be an OK thing to think rather than clinging to a story that quite frankly is about as believable as the Three Little Pigs?

[bryant69]

39. No it wouldn't.

Because once you write out Adam and Eve it changes the dynamcs of the sacrifie of Jesus Christ. Jesus's suffering in the Garden of Gethsamene and on the Cross are the core of Christianity and getting rid of Adam and Eve changes that, in my belief system.

I guess I'll just have to live with you thinking of me as a fundementalist.

Bryant

[Evoman]

42. So you believe in one thing, so that you can believe in another?

Isn't it possible that writing out Adam and Eve (which almost certainly didn't happen) changes the dynamics of the sacrafice of Jesus Christ BECAUSE the sacrafice of Jesus Christ either didn't happen or was in vain? Maybe the core of christianity is wrong.

I literally can't understand that sort of thinking. You want or need to believe in something so bad, that you have to accept a lot of other intellectually offensive propositions in order to back it up. I mean, c'mon....aren't you embarrased to believe that there were two people (one made from clay, the other from a rib) in a mythical garden now guarded by an angel with a flaming sword? How does that fit in with everything we know from physics, geology, biochemistry and biology? How do you compartmentalize your brain to believe those things, anyways...evolution has almost completely shown that adam and eve are nonsense...how do you keep on believing a story with a talking snake in it? Don't you have any doubts? I would go crazy if my world view didn't jive with the evidence.

Your life won't end if you stop believing in Jesus or Adam and Eve you know. There are plenty of people who changed their mind, and let go of all that nonsense and still live happy, meaningful lives.

[bryant69]

43. No I'm not embarrassed.

I do appreciate that many here feel that maybe there's something wrong with me being a Christian, but you'll just have to trust me when I tell you there isn't.

Bryant

[Evoman]

44. Thats a strawman..I never said there was ANYTHING wrong with being

a christian. I just don't understand it. I'm simply saying that there is plenty of evidence that rules out the adam and eve story. Why do you still believe it? Don't you have any doubts? Isn't it possible that your wrong, especially since there are many theologians (not to mention scientists) who don't believe it?

Why would you hold on to a false belief? Simply because you are comforted?

.
.
.
.
.
Honestly...you have no doubts whatsoever about the flaming-sword wielding angel defending gods garden? And if we can't ever find the garden, why does it need an angel defending it anyways.

[bryant69]

46. Of course I have doubts. What rational person doesn't have doubts?

And it's not a strawman argument - although you've changed the focus back to Adam and Eve in this post, your previous one was pretty straightforward about rejecting both Adam and Eve and Jesus Christ. If it's embarrassing to believe in Jesus Christ, isn't there something wrong with believing in Jesus Christ? And isn't believing in Jesus Christ the whole point to being a Christian?

I have doubts but I have faith.

Bryant

[Evoman]

47. Maybe

I don't think its embarassing to believe in Jesus...many people do. Even some atheists believe he actually existed (I don't). Believing he was born of a virgin or that he was resurrected from the dead...yeah, I would find that pretty embarrasing to believe.

However, I will accept your claim that I believe that there is something wrong with worshipping Christ. There is a subtle difference between believing and worsipping...but I will take back my accusation of a strawman, nevertheless.

Still, I can't understand how you function with your world-view. You are basically besieged daily with evidence that the entire bible is false...that there are no demons in disease, that we evolved from a previous life form, that we aren't made of either clay or bones. We have found no garden of eden, and and sword that flames...sigh. Don't even get me started with the talking snake.

The burden of contrary evidence keeps building. And in order to shrug off all that doubt, you simply say "I have faith", like its a good thing. I don't understand faith either....faith is just another way of saying "irrationally stubborn".

Lol...its okay though. Even though I don't understand why any person would have faith, you keep on believing what you do. Just remember, if you ever want to clear your mind of that stuff, there are people here who you can talk to...many of them having been through it as well.

Doubts are a good thing...they are your minds way of telling you, "Theres something wrong here..things don't add up."

[Dorian Gray]

36. Bryant...

very interesting that I believe almost the opposite of you.

I believe that Adam and Eve is little more than allegory. I don't believe that they actually ate a piece of fruit from the tree of knowledge, nor do I believe that's why we are prone to sin.

I DO believe, however, that all men and women are born with the pre-disposition to sin. It is only through learning (whether religious teaching or learning social mores) that we learn to overcome our ID-like desires (which I believe are a manifestation of sin/evil) and work toward social good.

Evil and Sin does not have to be purposefully provocative or harmful to others. I personally believe that only thinking of your self (selfishness) and making yourself happy while ignoring the needs of others around you is what makes this world the place it is today. Self interest, even in small doses (not letting another car merge in front of you) is actually the embodiment of our sinful and selfish nature. Little things everyday that portray our self involvement and selfishness. Or vice versa.

[bryant69]

41. Well we live in a fallen world, and hence have to battle our darker

angels. I guess it's nature or nurture in a way -I would argue that our sinful nature more or less automatically arises because of the evil world we live in. But that our souls are pure when we first show up here.

Bryant

[Vidar]

10. I see an interesting parallel between family dysfunction

and original sin: a curse that goes on for many generations, not sparing the innocent. However, I have no illusions that the original authors intended it that way.

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. "Line up for the big processional, step into the small confessional..."

"There the guy who's got religion'll
tell you if your sin's original.

If it is try playin' it safer;
drink the wine and chew the waver.
Two, four, six, eight
Time to transubstansiate!"

(From "The Vatican Rag", by Tom Lehrer)

Original sin is nothing more than the setup for which Jesus' execution is the punchline. Without some kind of automatic damnation, there is no point to Christianity.

[okasha]

31. I have a question for those who checked "there's no such thing as sin."

I'm a pagan, and I don't believe in "original sin" or that many--perhaps most--things defined by Christianity as "sin" are morally wrong. I have a problem doing away with the concept altogether, though.

If you don't have some such concept as sin, what does that make of the murder of six million Jews? A bad hair day? Something to be talked over with your therapist so that you can "feel good about yourself" again? If you do away with the idea of moral wrong, which is what "sin" is, then how do you talk about a monstrosity like the Holocaust?

[bryant69]

33. The concept of Sin and the concept of Evil can be seperated

A Sin is an offense against God (or at least that is how I see it), which the Holocaust certainly was (assuming God Exists). But whether or not God exists it was certainly Evil with a capital E.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[LostInAnomie]

40. To believe in sin you first have to believe that there is a God...

... that sets the behavioral guidelines, and is offended when those guidelines are crossed. Once the idea of God is removed so is the idea of sin. That is not to say that there are not things we would consider right and wrong, or moral and immoral. We just have to recognize that our perceptions of right/wrong and moral/immoral are reflections of how we want the world to be, or at least reflection of how society wants the world to be.

It's possible to not believe in sin and still believe that the holocaust was the horrendous act of a monster. It's possible because we can understand that we ourselves would not wanted to have been placed in a death camp, we have sympathy for those that were and their families, and we understand that for society to function we have to have an appreciation for the value of human life. You don't need "God" or "sin" to understand these things. Simple reason, sympathy, and empathy do the job.

[BurtWorm]

45. I don't think sin is the same as "moral wrong"

Sin implies disobedience, doesn't it? Well, if it does, I don't believe what people call evil stems from disobedience to God or moral law. But I do believe there are such things as "crimes" and "crimes against humanity," which may be prompted by any variety of stimuli.

[okasha]

53. I don't think sin necessarily implies disobedience.

If that were so, we wouldn't say we "sin" against other people, and we do have that usage. It seems to me that "sin" connotes a deliberate intention to do moral wrong, whereas moral wrong does not necessarily connote intent. For instance, you may be driving over the speed limit and run a stop sign, which is a minor legal offense. But if you strike a pedestrian and injure him, that is a moral wrong arising from your carelessness. Yet there was no intent to harm the person, so it's not a "sin," as deliberately running him down would be.

Or so it seems to me.

[Marie26]

48. Evil is not the same thing as sin. nt

[trotsky]

49. How does one talk about a monstrosity like the Holocaust...

limiting oneself to a word that many apply to masturbation?

[BurtWorm]

50. Now there's an aphorism!

[okasha]

54. How does one talk about a monstrosity like the Holocaust

limiting oneself to a word (crime) that many apply to stealing a candy bar?

[trotsky]

55. Did I use that word?

No. But since you're insisting the Holocaust can't be properly discussed and evaluated without using the term "sin," you're the one who's got some 'splainin to do.

[Random_Australian]

56. I mean really, you can think of no other description of

genocide than "sin" - that without that particular word all actions are equal?

Why in the name of green goodness should "sin" be such an important concept?
Why should it be the lone arbiter of 'moral wrong'?

In fact, now I think about it, what the fuck jibe was that at therapists?

I have an idea - how about I declare various things, like genocide, to be completely morally wrong in my world-view, and leave the entire concept of crimes against God or whatever to the theists?

[varkam]

57. Sin is a metaphysical concept

Usually one that requires adherence to the belief in a soul, or some force that survives bodily death. At least, that's how I view sin, as I've always heard sin referred to as being on your soul and thus facilitating judgment following death.

To wit, I ask the following: If Hitler is not burning in hell for the Holocaust, and simply is non existent, does that make the Holocaust any better? I believe the term we have for such actions are "crimes against humanity" - which, by the way, is a class of crime separate from stealing a candy bar. In short, I don't see why we have to reference a metaphysical realm in order to adequately describe the perverted viciousness of some actions.

And, for the record, the goal of most psychotherapy is not to "'feel good about yourself' again".

[bloom]

58. Well - it's easy enough to Google

So of course there is something called "sin" - if you are going to take the statement literally. I guess some people must not have done that.

You don't have to be religious to see that there is a definition that would fit the word without it being connected to religion. ie. #3 as a noun or #2 as a verb.

I can see where for some people the word is so linked to religion in their mind that they cannot think of the word existing outside of religion - regardless of definitions.


sin 1 (sn)
n.
1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.

2. Theology
a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
b. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.

3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.

intr.v. sinned, sin·ning, sins
1. To violate a religious or moral law.
2. To commit an offense or violation.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sin

[BurtWorm]

59. Is it a crime to commit a sin?

"Sin" in the third sense is obviously derived from the religious meanings, but it's not as precise a term as the religious meanings of "sin," or the word "crime."

[bloom]

60. religion and law

used to be essentially the same - and there is certainly overlap.

I can imagine the word sin being used to describe something that is both criminal and just really awful. Crimes are not all equally "shameful & deplorable" - some are worse than others and I can see someone using the word for emphasis.


I'm surprised that the dictionary did not mention more about the usage of the word as slang - as in "Sinfully delicious". Which is really using the word as more of a positive thing.
_________________________________


Interesting that the God, "Sin' - the moon-god of Ur, was the "lord of wisdom." (It reminds me of the snake/wisdom denigration effort).

"His symbols are the crescent moon, the bull, and the tripod."

"The cult of Sin spread to other centers, and temples of the moon-god are found in all the large cities of Babylonia and Assyria."

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Sin+ (ancient+Middle+Eastern+religions)

The whole sin concept may be part of the campaign to undermine the previously worshiped gods by the newcomers - like the fuss the Bible makes about golden calves and bulls and all.

[nemo137]

52. I don't hold to Original Sin

I do believe that there's something pretty wrong with us (our limitless capacity to do damage to eachother) for which original sin makes a decent enough shorthand.