NationStates Jolt Archive

I have never understood why original sin is suppoesed to be a bad thing. Why was it a sin?
First of all what is a sin? Two interesting points about sins I have heard are that: most sins harm other people, but all harm God,
and that the sin is in the desicion to act, rather than the act itself.
Please someone tell me if either of these are only specific to one group within Christianity, I don't know for sure.
So a sin is the desicion to do something that will harm God (I don't necesserily mean physically harm Him)
So, what if you do not know you are sinning? Because then surely you do not make a desicion to sin because you would not know that you are sinning? Would someone who had been brought up to know that killing was acceptable adn who had never heard of Christianity, would they be sinning if they killed someone? In legal terms ignorance of the law is no defense but ignorance is a defence in moral terms is it not?
Adam and Eve had free will before they ate the apple but they had no knowledge of good and evil. Does that mean they no concept of them or simply that they knew nothing about them? By calling the decision to eat the apple a sin, doesn't that imply that it was a betrayal of God's trust, but if they did not know that disobeying God was an evil thing to do then how can they be blamed for it?
I think we need to be clear what the knowledge of good and evil means. I would say that on a human level it is empathy. Leaving God aside for the minute, when you do something evil or good to another person you do it because you know they are a person and they have feelings like yours. Empathy is what allows you to tell when you are inflicting pain on someoenelse or giving them happiness. It is for this reason that humans do things other than for personal gain more than any other creature, because we have far more empathy.
So, by my reasoning, the extent to which you are responsible for your actions, and therefore how good and evil you can be, are a measure of how srtong your empathic sense is. But I do not believe in God, who is the other part of sinning. All sins harm God, which is why God can forgive any sin. So for people to be able to sin against God, they must have something similar to empathy that allows them to understand when they are doing something that is causing God pain, and when they are doing something that is pleasing Him. So they need an understanding of God (not a complete understanding, which would be impossible, but a partial understanding).
So if original sin is what allowed us to commit good and evil acts, then it must have given us both empathy and an understanding of God, to be able to delibirately cause harm or give help to both other humans and God. Why are either of these things bad?
It seems to me that by calling original sin a sin abd therefore a bad thing, Christianity implies that everything humans have accomplished is still not worth leving Eden, that blissfull ignorance is better than difficult understanding.
Please no flame responses that simply say 'f*ck off, Christianity is the best' with no arguments. I would really like to know whether or not there are flaws in my reasoning and debate the subject rationally.

Well, i think that Original Sin is more of a Catholic thing, but since both my parents are Vicars, i'll have a go at sorting this out...

First of all, a sin is considered to be anything that would displease God.

Adam and Eve didn't even have the concept of good and evil, they didn't even realise they were naked and that it was innapropriate (not flamebaiting the nudists out there or anything, it's what it says in the bible pretty much) until they ate the fruit. It was still sin however because God specifically told them not to do it.

As for people who don't know the difference between good and evil, i really don't know... i'll ask my dad and get back to you on that one

And i think that Yes, christians would say that it IS worth abandoning all we have to be in eden, because effectively eden was as close to heaven on earth as you can get, and the ultimate goal of christianity is to get to heaven ne? When you look at the kind of kooky shit that goes on down here i can kinda see why too...

That's just my two cents anyway, hope it helps

Though not an answer to your question I would like to add the simplified version of what i originally thought the "original sin" story meant:

God offered humanity a choice. They could either:

A. stay in Eden, living happily with no cares - but no potential for growth either. This is the idea of a father pampering his children, or the sterotypical guy that still lives in his mothers basement when he is 35.

OR

B. accept hardship, trouble etc., but in the end have a chance to be truly worthy children of God. Take the more difficult road that may kill you and is damn unpleasant, but if you walk it fully leads to greater riches in the end.
This is like a parent that lets his children go, even though they are not quite ready, because a good parent knows they will never be ready.

We picked B. God wanted us to pick B, but also wanted us to think it was our own decision. Which is why he sent the serpent. This interpretation IMO promotes thinking scientifically and questioning God from time to time. Just like a smart kid does with his father, and for which a good father feels proud.

Unfortunately this interpretation does not go well with the rest of the Bible (or the exact text of the story itself for that matter), nor with the main opinions of the various religions. So I had to throw it out the window.
I still prefer it to the doctrine and the way people speak of Sin you mention in your post though.

Though not an answer to your question I would like to add the simplified version of what i originally thought the "original sin" story meant:

God offered humanity a choice. They could either:

A. stay in Eden, living happily with no cares - but no potential for growth either. This is the idea of a father pampering his children, or the sterotypical guy that still lives in his mothers basement when he is 35.

OR

B. accept hardship, trouble etc., but in the end have a chance to be truly worthy children of God. Take the more difficult road that may kill you and is damn unpleasant, but if you walk it fully leads to greater riches in the end.
This is like a parent that lets his children go, even though they are not quite ready, because a good parent knows they will never be ready.

We picked B. God wanted us to pick B, but also wanted us to think it was our own decision. Which is why he sent the serpent. This interpretation IMO promotes thinking scientifically and questioning God from time to time. Just like a smart kid does with his father, and for which a good father feels proud.

Unfortunately this interpretation does not go well with the rest of the Bible (or the exact text of the story itself for that matter), nor with the main opinions of the various religions. So I had to throw it out the window.
I still prefer it to the doctrine and the way people speak of Sin you mention in your post though.



so god's punishing us for something he wanted us to do?

Though not an answer to your question I would like to add the simplified version of what i originally thought the "original sin" story meant:

God offered humanity a choice. They could either:

A. stay in Eden, living happily with no cares - but no potential for growth either. This is the idea of a father pampering his children, or the sterotypical guy that still lives in his mothers basement when he is 35.

OR

B. accept hardship, trouble etc., but in the end have a chance to be truly worthy children of God. Take the more difficult road that may kill you and is damn unpleasant, but if you walk it fully leads to greater riches in the end.
This is like a parent that lets his children go, even though they are not quite ready, because a good parent knows they will never be ready.

We picked B. God wanted us to pick B, but also wanted us to think it was our own decision. Which is why he sent the serpent. This interpretation IMO promotes thinking scientifically and questioning God from time to time. Just like a smart kid does with his father, and for which a good father feels proud.

Unfortunately this interpretation does not go well with the rest of the Bible (or the exact text of the story itself for that matter), nor with the main opinions of the various religions. So I had to throw it out the window.
I still prefer it to the doctrine and the way people speak of Sin you mention in your post though.


I agree I like this version better

Though not an answer to your question I would like to add the simplified version of what i originally thought the "original sin" story meant:

God offered humanity a choice. They could either:

A. stay in Eden, living happily with no cares - but no potential for growth either. This is the idea of a father pampering his children, or the sterotypical guy that still lives in his mothers basement when he is 35.

OR

B. accept hardship, trouble etc., but in the end have a chance to be truly worthy children of God. Take the more difficult road that may kill you and is damn unpleasant, but if you walk it fully leads to greater riches in the end.
This is like a parent that lets his children go, even though they are not quite ready, because a good parent knows they will never be ready.

We picked B. God wanted us to pick B, but also wanted us to think it was our own decision. Which is why he sent the serpent. This interpretation IMO promotes thinking scientifically and questioning God from time to time. Just like a smart kid does with his father, and for which a good father feels proud.

Unfortunately this interpretation does not go well with the rest of the Bible (or the exact text of the story itself for that matter), nor with the main opinions of the various religions. So I had to throw it out the window.
I still prefer it to the doctrine and the way people speak of Sin you mention in your post though.

I really like that. I'm an atheist and I really like that. You didn't convert me or anything, but there's still something sadly beautiful about the concepts involved.

Though not an answer to your question I would like to add the simplified version of what i originally thought the "original sin" story meant:

God offered humanity a choice. They could either:

A. stay in Eden, living happily with no cares - but no potential for growth either. This is the idea of a father pampering his children, or the sterotypical guy that still lives in his mothers basement when he is 35.

OR

B. accept hardship, trouble etc., but in the end have a chance to be truly worthy children of God. Take the more difficult road that may kill you and is damn unpleasant, but if you walk it fully leads to greater riches in the end.
This is like a parent that lets his children go, even though they are not quite ready, because a good parent knows they will never be ready.

We picked B. God wanted us to pick B, but also wanted us to think it was our own decision. Which is why he sent the serpent. This interpretation IMO promotes thinking scientifically and questioning God from time to time. Just like a smart kid does with his father, and for which a good father feels proud.

Unfortunately this interpretation does not go well with the rest of the Bible (or the exact text of the story itself for that matter), nor with the main opinions of the various religions. So I had to throw it out the window.
I still prefer it to the doctrine and the way people speak of Sin you mention in your post though.


Also their shouldn't be such a thing as 'hell' if he wanted their to be evil in the world?

so god's punishing us for something he wanted?

No according to this reasoning he is not punishing us at all. He just let us go to stand on our own two feet. He is around to give friendly parental advice from time to time - he just doesn't solve every problem for you.

But as i said: this interpretation conflicts with the actual bibletext and most doctrine.

I find it humorous that you can tell what God "wanted" us to pick...

Original sin would be, to any Jew/Christian, When Adam and Eve decided to eat from the forbidden tree...

What is sin? Sin is a fall from grace... When you have sin on your conscience you do not have perfect grace with God...

Sin is in the decision AND the act...

Ignorance is Bliss.. if you do not know you are sinning, therefor you cannot be accountable for the sin you have committed...

By law you are saying Gov't Laws, in this case laws made you protect the people. It is like comparing apples and oranges... Man-made Laws and laws of "sin" if you will...

When told NOT to do something by your parent, yet you still do, does it not require an action to correct what you had done?

But by you saying there is no God, what proof could you use to back it up? The very existance of sin itself is a valid point. If a perfect God created this world, then how could there be sin? Sin is evil, therefor showing that God is not perfect... For these answers look at St. Thomas Aquinas, Arisnea (I fucked that name up), and various other 'Dark Age' philosophers...

For everything you say to disprove an existance of a higher being, there is something to counteract that... Vise-versa...

Though not an answer to your question I would like to add the simplified version of what i originally thought the "original sin" story meant:

God offered humanity a choice. They could either:

A. stay in Eden, living happily with no cares - but no potential for growth either. This is the idea of a father pampering his children, or the sterotypical guy that still lives in his mothers basement when he is 35.

OR

B. accept hardship, trouble etc., but in the end have a chance to be truly worthy children of God. Take the more difficult road that may kill you and is damn unpleasant, but if you walk it fully leads to greater riches in the end.
This is like a parent that lets his children go, even though they are not quite ready, because a good parent knows they will never be ready.

We picked B. God wanted us to pick B, but also wanted us to think it was our own decision. Which is why he sent the serpent. This interpretation IMO promotes thinking scientifically and questioning God from time to time. Just like a smart kid does with his father, and for which a good father feels proud.

Unfortunately this interpretation does not go well with the rest of the Bible (or the exact text of the story itself for that matter), nor with the main opinions of the various religions. So I had to throw it out the window.
I still prefer it to the doctrine and the way people speak of Sin you mention in your post though.

I like that. It is a sort of religious humanistic view.

No according to this reasoning he is not punishing us at all. He just let us go to stand on our own two feet. He is around to give friendly parental advice from time to time - he just doesn't solve every problem for you.

But as i said: this interpretation conflicts with the actual bibletext and most doctrine.

I'm still not buying it. God wanted us to leave the garden, where adem worked, so we could suffer plague, famine, illness and death (really prowed father i bet). Also didn't he punish the snake and eve (and adem, but I don't see whats wrong with an adems apple).

Because now there's NEW Improved Original Sin, guaranteed 110% more sinful than before!!! :p

I'm still not buying it. God wanted us to leave the garden, where adem worked, so we could suffer plague, famine, illness and death (really prowed father i bet). Also didn't he punish the snake and eve (and adem, but I don't see whats wrong with an adems apple).

Yes he did "punish the snake." But you really cannot take the bible word for word... The snake, which has always been something 'evil' and 'bothersome' to people is a representation of Satan... It is said the snake walked on feet at this time, God made him crawl on his belly.. Maybe there is some fact to that snake at one time did have 'feet' like a milipede...

You cannot say God wanted to punish us. That is taking away a huge part of God, that he is not omnibenevolent... Everything we do and have done has a direct result in what happens...

You cannot say God wanted to punish us.

Well sorry but thats what your emplying, he sent the snake to tempt eve and adem and he wanted us to eat the fruit. Why if it wasn't that God wanted to punish us? Maybe he was holding a bet with some of the angles and bet they would fall for temptation?

sin is disobeying God, even if you are ignorant you are still sinning, and no origional sin is not a catyholic thing its in the bible and i'm a baptist beliveing it. Adam and Eve didnt have any knowledge of good and evil but God had still told them directly not to even touch the tree of knowlege of good and evil wich they did and so they sinned and were chucked out of the garden of eden

Original sin would be, to any Jew/Christian, When Adam and Eve decided to eat from the forbidden tree...


Yes I know that, and after they ate from it they had the knowledge of good and evil.


What is sin? Sin is a fall from grace... When you have sin on your conscience you do not have perfect grace with God...

Sin is in the decision AND the act...


I was sure that Christianity thought that the sin was in the desicion to act. It is why choosing to commit a sin but being unable to it is just as bad as actually doing it.


Ignorance is Bliss.. if you do not know you are sinning, therefor you cannot be accountable for the sin you have committed...

So you agree with me that Adam and Eve could not be responsible for the sin of eating the apple, as before they ate it they had no concept of what a sin was.


By law you are saying Gov't Laws, in this case laws made you protect the people. It is like comparing apples and oranges... Man-made Laws and laws of "sin" if you will...

I never attempted to compare the law of government with the law of God, my whole point was that they are completly different and so ignorance is an excuse to God's laws. You are agreeing with me but saying you are not.


When told NOT to do something by your parent, yet you still do, does it not require an action to correct what you had done?

But even when you are young you have a sense of what is right or wrong, and the action that is taken is too improve that sense so you don't do it again. Adam and Eve had no sense of right and wrong, or good and evil, so they cannot be held responsible, but likewise there was no point in correcting their action because after eating the apple they had a sense of good and evil, and so would be less likely to do something like that again anyway.

But by you saying there is no God, what proof could you use to back it up? The very existance of sin itself is a valid point. If a perfect God created this world, then how could there be sin? Sin is evil, therefor showing that God is not perfect... For these answers look at St. Thomas Aquinas, Arisnea (I fucked that name up), and various other 'Dark Age' philosophers...

For everything you say to disprove an existance of a higher being, there is something to counteract that... Vise-versa...

Sorry, I don't understand why you think I was attempting to disprove God. My argument was based upon the existance of God. The only time I mentioned whether or not He exists is when I said that for me sinning against humans is the only sort of sin because I do not believe in God myself.

Well sorry but thats what your emplying, he sent the snake to tempt eve and adem and he wanted us to eat the fruit. Why if it wasn't that God wanted to punish us? Maybe he was holding a bet with some of the angles and bet they would fall for temptation?

He did not send the snake.. The snake would be refering to Lucifer, a fallen angel, and 'head of the fallen angels.' He tempted Adam and Eve, not unlike how he tempted Jesus while he was fasting in the Desert... Did God tempt himself to give in to Evil?

He did not send the snake.. The snake would be refering to Lucifer, a fallen angel, and 'head of the fallen angels.' He tempted Adam and Eve, not unlike how he tempted Jesus while he was fasting in the Desert... Did God tempt himself to give in to Evil?

I'm not sure but hasn't what you just said controdicted what you said before?

The very problem with religion is the philosophy in trying to UNDERSTAND religion... So many times does it not make sense, and so many times people just blindly follow it...

This has been debated apon since humans had proper reason.. Eastern and Western philosophers STILL Debate the same questions that were debated thousands of years ago..

I'm not sure but hasn't what you just said controdicted what you said before?

I don't believe so? I attempt not to contradict my own beliefs ;) Sorry, Im really tired and jsut got out of class.. Im typing sloppily and reading different peoples posts and not directing my statements to the proper people.. Maybe I should just give up typing today :)

Well, i think that Original Sin is more of a Catholic thing, but since both my parents are Vicars, i'll have a go at sorting this out...

First of all, a sin is considered to be anything that would displease God.

Adam and Eve didn't even have the concept of good and evil, they didn't even realise they were naked and that it was innapropriate (not flamebaiting the nudists out there or anything, it's what it says in the bible pretty much) until they ate the fruit. It was still sin however because God specifically told them not to do it.

As for people who don't know the difference between good and evil, i really don't know... i'll ask my dad and get back to you on that one

And i think that Yes, christians would say that it IS worth abandoning all we have to be in eden, because effectively eden was as close to heaven on earth as you can get, and the ultimate goal of christianity is to get to heaven ne? When you look at the kind of kooky shit that goes on down here i can kinda see why too...

That's just my two cents anyway, hope it helps

Thanks, I'll be interested to know whether a vicar thinks ignorant sin is still sin as people seem to be divided on it so far.

The very problem with religion is the philosophy in trying to UNDERSTAND religion... So many times does it not make sense, and so many times people just blindly follow it...


So techicaly Christians are still no futher then what they were like in the garden? (Ignorance is Bliss)

I'm still not buying it. God wanted us to leave the garden, where adem worked, so we could suffer plague, famine, illness and death (really prowed father i bet). Also didn't he punish the snake and eve (and adem, but I don't see whats wrong with an adems apple).

No, the punishment of Adam was that he had to toil in the field.

I don't believe so? I attempt not to contradict my own beliefs ;) Sorry, Im really tired and jsut got out of class.. Im typing sloppily and reading different peoples posts and not directing my statements to the proper people.. Maybe I should just give up typing today :)

no sorry i just relised your a different guy to the one i was directing the questions too and as you awnsered i though you were him

sin is disobeying God, even if you are ignorant you are still sinning, and no origional sin is not a catyholic thing its in the bible and i'm a baptist beliveing it. Adam and Eve didnt have any knowledge of good and evil but God had still told them directly not to even touch the tree of knowlege of good and evil wich they did and so they sinned and were chucked out of the garden of eden

But would Adam and Eve understand that disobeying God was wrong? They obviously had a far less advanced moral sense.

knowledge is the anti-thesis of ignorance, and let's face it: you cannot control knowledgable people to the extent that you can control ignorant people. so, the cornerstone of any successful control-based religion is the denial of knowledge.

even better, make the pursuit of knowledge a "sin" punishable by eternal damnation in hell, and you have the perfect control loop.

think this is nuts? there's a reason for the original sin being the pursuit of knowledge, and the reason why christians are forbidden from researching and practicing occult methods.

taken to an extreme, sects of christianity (the jehova's witnesses, fundamentalist christians) are only allowed to read the bible, plus perhaps other religious "endorsed" materials, such as the JW watchtower publications.

religion is nothing more than a control system, designed to inhibit your spiritual growth. religion gives you just enough truth to satisfy the cravings of your soul, but not enough to truly enlighten.

Well sorry but thats what your emplying, he sent the snake to tempt eve and adem and he wanted us to eat the fruit. Why if it wasn't that God wanted to punish us? Maybe he was holding a bet with some of the angles and bet they would fall for temptation?
He did not send the snake.. The snake would be refering to Lucifer, a fallen angel, and 'head of the fallen angels.' He tempted Adam and Eve, not unlike how he tempted Jesus while he was fasting in the Desert... Did God tempt himself to give in to Evil?

The "temptation bet" that I've heard of was between Lucifer and God, who made a bet over whether Job would curse God's name after God took everything away from him (Job's possessions, his safety, his family, etc). Pretty crappy thing for God to do if you ask me, but who am I to judge?

Who said it was bad?? A two thousand year old book?! I know this will offend people, but it is just my opinion: The Catholic Chruch is unfortunately just one huge propaganda machine, so much good could be done but it won't even when the pope dies he will be replaced by men who are even more conservative then he is. If you look more carefully at the Bible and Christianity, catholicism in particular it is very simlar to that of the Jewish and Muslim religions. Both Islam and Catholicism have a month of fast, the Catholic fast is far easier to follow as are most of the catholic 'laws'. Sunday is a day of rest..shortens the week, women can not enter a chruch or receive communion if they are menstrating-could this be to reduce their power with in the chruch, most likely. When Catholicism was created there was no pope, priests could get married, many clerics regularly consulted with prominent rabbis over ideology etc, it was only when the chruch became the offical religion of the Roman empire under Constantine that the Chruch sought to destroy any other forms of relgion.
I fully understand the need for someform of organisation with in the chruch as it is so vast, but it has been taken to the extreme.
In short take no notice!!!!

orginal sin is not wrong but a very good song by meat loaf

Here's my take on "original sin".

Women are more intuitively in tune with the natural world. Matriarchal societies are more peaceful. Mothers shape future generations. Women have a natural power that men over the years have recognized and decided they want. Religion has become the tool to steal this power and subjugate women. The female is portraited as the instigator and primary party in the wrong that "original sin" refers too and in many interpretations she carries the shame and stigma alone, the male is portraited as an innocent dupe, tricked by the female. This is used to justify keeping the female subjugated, removed from power, lest she corrupt with her inheirited evil.

In truth the male is the one with the demons inside, the natural aggresion nature has given. Without the female matriarch to keep him in check, we end up with war, death and destruction.


Usually in the name of one religion or another.

og sin..i think its stupid :P

Orrigional sin is pretty bad - even the sex scenes with Angelina Jolie can't elevate the movie to an acceptable standard :p