Original Sin: Is it just a cop-out?

From what I've learned about original sin, it seems the forefront opinion among progressive Christians is that if original sin does exist, then it doesn't result from the mythical disobedience of Adam and Eve, but it is either genetic, or part of our collective consciousness.

Well, my problem isn't with that theory, but the concept of original sin itself. It seems to me the reason for original sin to exist is to be a scapegoat. For example, there have been married men all over the world who cheat on their wives, then blame original sin. Since he is fundamentally flawed, he was destined to cheat.
Original sin, from my point of view, is a way to throw personal responsibility out the window.

It's also a way to get out of responsibility as a species. People seem to think that we are destroying the environment because of something that is inherently wrong with us, which, to many people, is original sin.

Mind you, I'm not just picking on Christians I have similar problems with Hindu and Buddhist doctrine that says humans must perfect themselves over many lifetimes, until they're totally detached from the "sinful" world. There's similar doctrine in all other salvationist religions.

Does humanity really have any intrinsic flaws? Furthermore, do we really need to be saved from anything?

but it isn't that we need to be saved, per se. It's that we need to actually know what it means to be human, something I bet that very few people ever consciously know. I hate this, "I'm only a human" business. What would you rather be? A tree? A god? No, thanks. If I were destined to live forever--and not able to think, to feel, to have these inherently human qualities--I'd get terribly bored.

we don't really "need", because we have the tools right there within us to do it, if we'd just trust ourselves.

We need to know what it means to be human... I like that. Good points all around. :hi:

If we could save people from Organized Religion (tm) and get them into ethics, environment, and intelligence, we would make progress that would put Star Trek in the quaint category.

I certainly agree with you about organized, or as I call it, salvationist religion, by which I mean religions that teach we have to be saved from something. There certainly could be progress if people would stop taking it so damned seriously.

I like that.

I'm more of a "be here now" kinda guy, so sin and all that stuff just seems silly.

Golden rule on "dos and don'ts", plus some guidelines:

Don't do it if it's going to make you feel guilty.
If you've done it, don't feel guilty about it.

If you're honest with yourself, you'll stay out of trouble and you won't compromise yourself, and you won't hurt yourself or someone else.

Finally, help yourself so you can help others. Don't forget to help others.

And I really love the Desiderata - it's the kind of thinking I resonate to.

I don't really see why we would need to be saved from anything. Try reading "The Story of B" by Daniel Quinn, he gives a far more comprehensive view of this concept than I do.

it's our tendency to look outside ourselves for the cause for/solution to our problems. We are what we are, and we can either look our past straight in the eye and resolve to change things, or we can deny it and try to explain away pain and suffering by making it some transcendent thing beyond our power to fix.

We don't trust ourselves enough, period. If we would just have more faith in ourselves, then we could solve all our problems. Seek not yourself outside yourself, as the proverb goes. We shouldn't be relying on the supernatural to solve our problems or to wash away our faults.

I've ever heard is the one I grew up hearing. "No one said life is fair," my dad used to say.

I looked at him a few months ago and replied, "life isn't fair because PEOPLE aren't fair. Because they're brought up to believe that fairness isn't an important virtue."

He couldn't argue with that.

"That's funny. I always thought life was what people made of it."

Your's is better, though. I always HATE hearing that life isn't fair. Makes me want to :nuke:

The natural world might not be fair, but that doesn't mean we can't be.

but I think that the natural world has much more fairness than many believe. A lion may eat an animal, but the lion is not richer than its prey. Living things have things provided for them and provide for others, and the fact that some die by another animal's hand does not make it unfair automatically. There is a natural balance, and that is quite fair, IMO.

Just a thought.

but I was also considering disease, famine, natural conditions, and things that are far beyond anyone or anything's control. Prey vs. predator is fairly straight forward, but things are modified by other conditions.

You also have things like lions hunting cheetah cubs to kill because they're potential competition. Not fair, but natural.

Disease, famine and disasters are simply part of nature's balance. Death provides for life, and so these things are inherent in any world. Without destruction, you could not have creation and renewal, and that is what keeps nature itself going. Also, if you want to be cynical about it, disease is about as fair as you can get, as it doesn't discriminate across lines of race or anything else.

On that example, I do not think it is "fair", but again, the actions, not the natural world, are what make it unfair.

It is interesting to note that after the recent tsunami, there were very little to no carcases found. The animals were able to sense the coming disaster.

we had up here in Washington State several years ago. My wife's cats were as taken by surprise as I was. It took me a few seconds to figure out what was happening (I'd never actually FELT an earthquake before) and they froze as well before diving for cover. For the longest time one of her cats acted as though I was somehow responsible. It was pretty funny, actually.

Which means that the guy who came up with the concept of Original Sin was the Original Sinner.

Are sin and "imperfection" the same thing? I would say we are born imperfect, but without sin. Sin comes later, and is subjective. For example, a lot of people around here would believe it is sinful to start a war of aggression and kill a bunch of innocent people, while others think starting a war is virtuous, and whacking off is a real sin.


O8)

Many people have this view of humans as imperfect, i. e. we are fundamentally flawed. In the Judeo-Christian view, this fault is original sin. I certainly agree that we are imperfect, but I don't believe there is a huge fault that is blocking us from solving our problems, or being virtuous people.

you know, stuff like hammer toes, or flat hair, bad teeth. :-)

I agree with you that there is no inherent fault blocking us from solving our problems. But I guess, going back to my original theory of original sin, if there is that fundamental flaw, it seems to be the desire to dominate and control other people, which some would argue is manifested in pretty much every religion. And it does seem pretty inherent, given that other species also create hierarchies.

The other problem is coming to agreement on definitions for terms like "virtuous" and "sin."

I would argue that this desire to control not only extends to other people, but nature as well. We always hear people talking about "our world, our wildlife" and that man is conquering the oceans, deserts, and whatever else you'd care to name. As our control over the earth has its disastrous effects, we think the solution is MORE control, eg fusion power, controlling the weather, etc.
But I don't think this desire to control is something we're born with. Rather, it's something we learn from our culture. And we can pretty sucessfully control this desire, too.

If we have an inherent flaw, that is it.

to come across once opined that original sin referred to the sin our parents committed in coceiving us and that their sin was passed down to us.

Any questions on why I fled that church at the age of 10?

He was the same joker who said women should die in childbirth to save the baby because the baby might be a boy.

Personally, I find the studies on spontaneous altruism in toddlers to be far more telling about the human race than the fairy tales from the church about how we're born damned and need old men in dresses to save us.

Apparently God doesn't like ANY kind of sex, then. Not even "holy" love between husband and wife, for procreation purposes.
Maybe we should try to get this across to the fundie churches, then we wouldn't have to deal with them anymore...

Depending on the religion, or even any given sect of a religion "sin" has many definitions - almost as many definitions as gods.

What I'm talking about here is the view that since all humans are flawed in some large way, they are destined to sin, i. e. do bad things. What that is obviously is subjective.

without our religion your original sin is gonna get you to hell so you poor people send us lots
of money so we can have a filthy rich palace in rome or we will condemn you to hell
or burn you at the stake or holcaust you or make you slaves.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/democratsmugs.htm

As I understand it, original sin was a concept invented to explain why a native of some far-flung land who had never been visited by missionaries, although he/she might lead a perfect and blameless life, would nevertheless not be able to get into heaven. The inherent unfairness of this eventually led to the concept of Limbo, which was a nice place to live your afterlife, but you couldn't hang with God.

is one of the main reason's why I'm not a Christian anymore.

As for its relation to original sin, I certainly agree with you that it helps explain Limbo, et al. However, I think that Original Sin is first and foremost a scapegoat for why we do bad things. Personal responsibility goes out the window.

There is more than just THAT which allows those individuals (non-Christians) to be "damned". Other religions are deemed demonic by the Bible, and that's just one example.

First is protecting the Society against people from other Societies and,
Second to keep the Society Together.

The first is easy to understand, the second is harder. People have to learn to live, work and cooperate with other members of the group, including members someone does not like. Division of a Society (i.e. Civil War) is worse than any other types of situation and thus societies put severe efforts to make sure internal disputes are minimized. "Sin" is one of the concepts used to deal with this inherent problem. If you dislike someone in your group, it is a sin that you have to deal with (as does the other members of the Society). Now the sin can be your dislike of that person, or could be what that person is, but either way ALL MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY HAS TO DEAL WITH THE CONFLICT.

Now most societies differentiate between levels of "Sin". For example very few tolerate Murder for Murder brings with it the demand for revenge and a tear at the very soul of the Society (and thus most Societies deal with murder harsher than any crime except Treason/Hearsay). The clearest example of this is the Catholic Doctrine of "Severe Sins" (For you old timers "Mortal Sins") and ordinary "Sins" (For you old timers "Venial Sins"). Under Catholic Doctrine, only a Violation of the Ten Commandments is a "Sever Sins" as as such an act damnable to hell, ordinary Sins do NOT condemns a Person to Hell (You may have to spend time in Purgatory for your sins, but you will still get to heaven under Catholic Doctrine). Such hierarchy of sins and Crimes are common throughout history, for people want people not to sin, but some sins are considered worse then others (And as to Sexual Sins, only Adultery is listed in the ten Commandments and that is aimed at making sure the family stays intact then the actual act of sin for Fornications did NOT make the ten Commandments).

In pre-Christian States, the difference between Treason and Heresy did not exist, if you denounced your religion you were denouncing your family, your clan and your Society. As such was treated harshly, as is Treason is today. Only in the last 300 years did the idea develop that treason and Heresy were two different crimes (In fact in the Middle Ages if you were found guilty of Treason you were also treated as a heretic).

The reason for Treason and Heresy being treated so harshly was both crimes can destroy a Society (Heresy not so much in the last 300 years, but Treason still holds its ability to destroy a Society). What is treason? It is the betrayer of one's duties within a society.

Now what has this to do with "sin"? While "Sins" are derived from experience (some of which is no longer valid but that is a separate subject) "Sins" reflect efforts to minimize tensions within a Society. If one avoid "Sin" one avoids many of the internal problems within a Society. For example if husbands do NOT run around on their Wives, a major conflict between Fathers and Mothers can be avoided. Given that most young couples need help from older relatives, Husbands running around on their wives can cause conflict with other members of the Society (i.e. "How can he do that to my Daughter after I gave him so much?).

Even Homosexuality can be explained as destructive to a Society if that Society puts value on Marriage as a method of Social Unity (Which is why most ancient Cultures made Homosexuality a "Sin", less to do with the act as that it is an act of sex outside of Marriage, and those society were held together by Marriage). Now, most Society puts Homosexuality in the same category as other sexual misconduct (This is the Catholic Church's position) others put it on a higher plane (Fundamentalist position) but this often reflects how the society is shaped. With the invention of the Welfare state since WWII, the need for the extended family has declined and with the decline of the Extended family most restrictions involving sex has also disappeared (Thus the more "Open" discussion of Sex since the 1960s). Thus with the Welfare state the old sexual taboos are no longer needed to maintain support from BOTH sides of the family. Thus for most people these sins have declined in need, while other sins have increased in need (For example it has always been a sin NOT to work with others, and a sin NOT to tolerate others and a Sin NOT to give aid to Strangers/Guests, unlike sexual sins these Sins of omission has increased in the last 40 years).

Thus sin is as method to get people to work with others within a Society even when they do NOT want to, some sins are not the severe sins they were even 100 years ago, while others have increase in strength. Sin is a good Concept for people to understand they have to work with others, including people they do not like and to accept both the fact they do not like the other person and that it is WRONG. At the same time it make the victim of these sins (Or more accurately Errors in Judgments) to accept the sins of others with the understanding that people are not perfect.

besides another way of escaping personal responsibility? I can't tell you how many times, living in the bible belt, I've heard people confronted with trials and tribulations saying that they were going to "leave it in the hands of God". Don't do that! Get off your ass and do something! It's your life!

<flame retardant>
I'm not singling out Christians because I have a psychic need to bash them (okay, I do). I generally think all religion is a way of escaping personal responsibility.
</flame retardant>

can be primarily a way of escaping personal responsibility. By leaving thing in God's hand, we can blame him when our lives suck. It's such a stupid philosophy.
"A man is a god in ruins."- Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Even though I have religious beliefs, I'll take a more scientific point of view since this thread hasn't seemed to go there yet.
A long time ago, humans were at balance with their ecology. Due to our small numbers, our limited food foraging technology, and shorter life spans, we did not have a large impact on our environment and animals evolved to avoid us. Our technology became more successful, we migrated to new lands, and several socieites developed agriculture. We hunted some species to extinction in the new lands we inhabited. We laid waste to fragile ecosystems. We were able to increase in large numbers in areas where food was easily produced. We developed larger cultures beyond our intimate bands, who could decide things by concencus because they were small. When we needed more resources or land, we took it from people with less technology. Now we are in large numbers in every area of the globe. In many areas, we have destroyed our environment. We compete for land and resources.
Our flaw is that we became too successful to continue on with the naturual ways of our past. It is naturual that we want ourselves and groups to reproduce in large numbers. It is naturual that we want the best land and resources for ourselves. It is naturual that we see naturual resources as inexhaustable. It is naturual that we are short sighted. It is naturual that we favor those in "our group" over those who are not.
If our species is to continue on, we have to learn new ways of thinking. We have to learn that birth control and small families are a good thing. We have to learn that we do have a large impact on our environment and that we have to preserve our naturual resources. We have to learn that we are all members of the human race and all share this world. We have to learn to prepare for the future.
We have a responsibility to transcend our flaws, but we can also realize that our flaws did serve us well in the past which is why we tend towards them.

Theologian Matthew Fox has done a lot to revive put to rest fall/redemption religiosity in favor of the creation-centered spititual tradition -- to remove the emphasis from original sin and focus instead on original blessing . . .

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/1585420670.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg Original Blessing: A Primer in Creation Spirituality

"Specifically, what religion must let go of in the West is an exclusively fall/erdemption model of spirituality -- a model that has dominated theology, Bible studies, seminary and novitiate training, hagiography, psychology for centuries. It is a dualistic model and a patriarchal one; it begins its theology with sin and original sin, and it generally ends with redemption. Fall/redemption spirituality does not teach believers about the New Creation or creativity, about justice-making and social transformation, or about Eros, play, pleasure, and the God of delight. It fails to teach love of the earth or care for the cosmos, and it is so frightened of passion that it fails to listen to the impassioned pleas of the anawim, the little ones, of human history. This same fear of passion prevents it from helping lovers to celebrate their experiences as spiritual and mystical. This tradition has not proven friendly to artists or prophets or Native American peoples or women.

"We must choose," he says. "A spirituality is a way, a path. We do not come to two paths in a road and say 'I will go down both roads at once.' The West has been traveling the fall/redemption path for centuries. We all know it; we all have it ingrained in our souls; we have given it 95 percent of our energies in churches both Catholic and Protestant. And look where it has gotten us. Into sexism, militarism, racism, genocide against native peoples, biocide, consumerist capitalism, and violent communism. I believe it is time we chose another path. The path that is the most ancient, the most healing, the most feminist of the paths, even in the biblical tradition itself."

If no one else had brought him and this title/concept up, I would.

Of course he is not accepted by the church, a heretic you know, like most of my favorite spiritual writers were considered in their time. (But then I was kicked out of Catholic school in 5th grade for my doubts in their teaching and my questions and then the refusal to write 500 times that a good Catholic doesn't question their faith because I was quite sure that was a lie and God would like questions)
Fox says creation spirituality begins with realizing that each of us is born a unique expression of divinity, an image of God.

That fit so well with my deepest sense. We are born vibrant and open and with the duty to become our truest self. But society and conditioning and religion seem to instead try to form you into what they feel you should be, a squelching of self. Of course kids need guidance and limits, not talking about raising brats...but in cherishing and nurturing who the being is.

I'm having trouble finding the words here but it's in losing touch with our essence that we lose touch with "God" and religion is no replacement for that, it's more of a barrier to it.

It is original blessing I believe in...but it all gets skewed along the way.

Btw I went to one of his book signings. I didn't know the etiquette of it, I already had all his books, no new ones to buy. I got there early and he strolled out and called me over. He signed them all. We talked a long time and he is as his books would suggest, nothing fake about him. He saw the books were well read and asked a lot of questions about why they mattered to me, about my beliefs, my relationship with God and we talked about God and the times we were in.

I had to leave but was shocked that no one else had come and that we had gotten to talk so long. He gave me some brochures and literature and talked yet a little more.
When I turned to leave I saw the long line of people wrapped around the store waiting. That made that long talk odder, but Lord did I feel blessed.

It's the most evolution derailing and culturally pervasive form of 'low self esteem'.
It's an underhanded way for salvationist theists to blame God for theirs and their ancestor's mistakes.

The oldest living cultures have no concept whatsoever of 'needing to be saved'. The need for salvation is a response to culture, not to being human.

unwelcome at least to some. I have a bone to pick with the way we've been handled. Assume for a moment there is a God. He sends us all out without any clothes on our backs much less a user's manual. Now we are born innocently as babes but somehow we have already sinned by entering the planet?

I call that absolutely unfair. If I have done something sinful and this is really "prison planet" I think it would serve all of our interests to know why we are considered sinful and what the punishment is for. I won't take some generic explanation either. Did I kill, maim or screw someone over? If so maybe I should be conscious of it so that I could right my bad actions. Otherwise I can't say I agree with original sin it only makes me mad and defensive, especially to have someone like Falwell or Robertson trying to preach to me that I'm going to hell unless I take it and like it. It isn't logical and I need better answers first.:shrug:

:shrug:

IE - rebelling against an ideal for some reason we see as logical.

We trash dems here often over how they have violated core principles we hold as progressives. To me that is tantamount to 'sin' - that is, we think it is wrong to compromise with republicans over the patriot act to appease voters locally who elect us (as one example). It is when the self becomes more important than the whole in this case.

Original sin was a rebellion against what was best for all to enjoy the fruits of things we should not have tasted (ie, a selfish thing to engage in - please thyself first).

Despite the simple law laid down - ie, don't eat of this tree - mankind did not care and tried to do what it wanted for the few (Adam and Eve) instead of what was best for all. We took what we wanted, like we are doing today.

Will we ever learn?