Talk:Original sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity.
To participate, edit this article or visit the project page.

This article is a former featured article. Please see its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article was removed from Wikipedia:Featured articles on July 15, 2004 due to a copyright violation. The discussion that led to the removal is listed at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive

[edit] Old discussion

[edit] Original sin explained ?

My own research, I realize this is frowned upon by this encyclopedia, suggests that the deceptive dark side of truth, otherwise known as the many faces of half-truths most of which are not currently recongized, is the original sin from the Garden that remains with us.

It was an error of philosophy that unbelievably remains with us today. Truth can lie. The devil deceived Adam and Eve on the ability of Truth, and we still are deceived by it.

The analogy about truth, and or knowledge is based on a simple metaphor. The Truth pictured as a tree, has many fruits, all are truths. Taking of a truth, while true, does not make like God to know The Truth.

This 'original sin' is handed down to each generation from birth and education.

We are not God to know The Truth ! that simple.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The opening statement that use in finance is "mere" analogy is POV. I will change it.

"My own research, I realize this is frowned upon by this encyclopedia, suggests that the deceptive dark side of truth, otherwise known as the many faces of half-truths most of which are not currently recongized, is the original sin from the Garden that remains with us."

More to the correct point, is that 'half-truths' are a result of the 'original sin', and that is the belief that Truth will make us like God to know The Truth about things...this is false, for as one

Alfred North Whitehead, a British mathematician who became an American philosopher, said in 1953: "There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil".

Why this statement was not pursued logically to its conclusion is a good question for philosophers.

My original research on this topic, proceeds to suggest that some types of half-truths, there are several types, is in fact a truth, that forms a lie. A paradox of truth that can be undestood by examining the story of the original sin and the tree of knowledge...( Truths).

Since this can now be substantiated, the story may confirm a 'communication' link with God. (that would be the other half of the truth...)

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have found that the bulk of the article is simply lifted from Encarta, which is a violation of copyright. I have begun a major revision in order to eliminate this copyrighted material. Please feel free to contribute where material is lacking. Athanasius 14:13, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article needs some reworking so that it addresses the doctrine of Original Sin, which is a specific Christian doctrine dealing with the inheritance of Adam's original sin, rather than just a title assigned to the sin that Adam committed.

I've tried to address part of that.

I believe that a lot could be added to this article for someone knowledgeable. There are probably implications of this doctrine for such things as infant baptism, the Catholic doctrine of immaculate conception, and perhaps the differences in the Protestant and Catholic approaches to this issue. I also suspect that the comment in the following comment sounds a little Protestant to me, and may not be quite how Catholics see it, but perhaps I am wrong: "The only way we are justified in God's eyes and reconciled with God is by humbly asking for forgiveness, believing that his son Jesus Christ through his death and crucifixion? took on himself the due punishment for our sins and trespasses (atonement?, and living life in obedience to God" -- Egern

I once read that Augustine held that even if you lead a perfect life and humbly ask God for forgiveness etc., He can still through you into hell because of the original sin. There does not appear to be a way to wash it off, you have to hope for mercy and have no right to expect it. I wonder if this is still doctrine, and whether catholics and protestants disagree on that point. --AxelBoldt

That certainly sounds like Augustine. Augustine probably marks the earliest point of theological departure between the Western (Catholic and Protestant) and Eastern branches of Christianity. (And this has nothing to do with the filioque clause or cultural issues like leavened/unleavened bread.) Augustine taught that you inherit the guilt of Adam's sin (maybe of everyone between you and Adam, I'm not sure), whereas Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that we inherit a corrupted human nature with a tendency to choose sin, but that we are only guilty of our own sins. Original sin is why the Catholics felt a need to come up with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, I think in the 19th century. The Eastern Orthodox church sees no need for such a doctrine, because Mary wouldn't inherit any guilt anyway, just like everyone else.

Because Augustine wrote in Latin, and wrote such large quantities, most of his contemporaries in the East didn't read much of his work, and so didn't have any immediate reaction at all, positive or negative. The Western church of course paid it much closer attention. As for as Protestantism, Augustine's doctrine of original sin still shows up in various forms, particularly in Calvinism (see Total depravity under TULIP, I think) and to some extent in Lutheranism. Arminianism doesn't hold to total depravity, but I can't remember what they do with original sin right off.

Do jews have an equivalent doctrine, or do they just ignore it? And muslims? -- James

I believe that the most recent change from "Judaism" to "Judaeo-Christian" really misses the point of the article, which is to trace the development of the idea from a traditional Jewish one to the idea as it developed in Christianity. Also, the term "Judaeo-Christian" is controversial and fraught with difficulties (see the article on that subject in this encyclopedia). Therefore, I propose undoing the last change to the article. -- Egern

See above. I don't really know how Islam views it. - Sparky 23:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In line with the first comment on the talk page, I have revised the first paragraph with an eye towards NPOV. Given that different people/religious traditions read the Bible in very different ways, I think it is especially important to distinguish clearly between what the Bible says and specific ways in which the story is read.

I changed the account from a description of a "sin" to a description of an "act." The Bible describes an act. It does not explicitly label it as a "sin." It is only specific traditions that interpret it as a sin, or even as the "original" sin.
I deleted the association of the serpant with satan, for two reasons. First, I am not sure the text actuaually identifies the serpant as satan. Second, I am sure that what the Hebrew word "satan" means is open to question. Some religious traditions identify "satan" with a specific entity or power, some do not. I think most native english speakers will assume "satan" is just the name of a specific entity. But this is an interpretation, not the plain meaning of the text, so I think the article must be clear.
I changed "apple" to "fruit." The Bible does not identify the fruit as an apple. People may call it an apple in the sense that "apple" is sometimes used generically to refer to fruit (thus, in french, a potato is a pomme de'terre, and apple of the earth). But most native English speakers think "apple" is the specific fruit of a specific class of trees, and to call the fruit an apple here would be misleading.

Finally, I changed "embarassed" to "ashamed" which I do think is closer to the language of the text.

I of course have no objection to the following section explaining how some people think this act was a sin, how some people think that the snake was Lucifer, or how some people think the fruit was an apple. I just think the initial description of the Biblical story should be neutral. SR

Satan only appears in The Book of Job as a dutiful servant of God

For what it's worth, I heartily agree with your changes, for the reasons you gave. I didn't know about the Hebrew word for "satan", always thought it came from the Greek "satanos" for "tempter". But you're right, calling it sin and identifying the snake as satan were later interpretations, and calling the fruit an "apple" is an old pet peeve of mine. --Wesley

Satan means to oppose

BY THE WAY -- the text also makes clear that eating the fruit does NOT lead to a sure death "on that day." Doesn't this mean that God lied? And surely, isn't THAT the "original" sin? (just trying to be a little bit of an "adversary!") -- SR

Well... I don't mean to take this any more seriously than it was meant, but if the "days" in Gen. 1 and 2 are ages instead of 24-hour days, couldn't a "day" in Gen. 3 be an age as well? Another interpretation might be that Adam's spiritual death began the day he ate the fruit and chose independence from God, the source of all life, and that this only played itself out in physical death many years later. If there is a God and He did lie, then we all have a very big problem. :-) --Wesley

God did not lie; Satan (the serpent lied), according to the Unification Church (of which I am a member). We interpret Luke 9:60 ("Let the dead bury their own dead") and similar NT verses as describing two types of death: (1) literal physical death of the body, and (2) spiritual death, i.e., inability to love and to receive God's love. In Luke 9:60 Jesus suggested that the spiritually dead (sense 2) relatives of the deceased (sense 1) conduct the funeral, while exhorting the young man to forget all that and follow Him. Likewise, the death spoken of in Gen. 2:17 ("in the day that you you eat of it you will die") was not physical death but spiritual death. -- Ed Poor

Perhaps in committing the first sin God is inviting us to learn how to forgive! In any case, the splendour of the book (well, a part of it, at least) is that just as a diamond sparkles from many facets, the Bible invites such a variety of equally valuable interpretations! ;) SR

Interestingly enough, the story is about a serpent who apparently had legs. The serpent was also punished for the "act" as much as Adam and Eve were, and the serpent's punishment was to have to have to travel by slithering on the ground. Clearly this story originally had nothing whatsoever to do with Satan. -- Egern

The standard explanation of this, I believe, is that God did not lie, but he was speaking in metaphor.

Ed, you deleted the part of the entry that pointed out that many people mistakenly believe that Satan is part of the story. You made the cryptic comment that "this isn't NPOV". What do you mean by this? Who do you believe that this statement is towards towards, and who against? We are talking about the text of a book. This isn't a matter of religious or theological debate. This isn't a religious belief. The simple fact is that many millions of unread people mistakenly assume that Satan is part of the Adam and Eve story in the Bible. That, obviously, is false. The Satan character wasn't introduced into the story until many centuries later, and then this was only done in different books. The actual text of Genesis was never rewritten, even in Christianity. Does your Church use a new Hebrew text for Genesis that does mention Satan? If so, this new version should certainly be mentioned, but we cannot hide the fact that the standard version used by both Christians and Jews does NOT have this. RK

The claim that people mistakenly assume that Satan is part of the Adam and Eve story in the Bible needs to be attributed to a scholar or other authority. Moreover, if there is controversy over the interpretation of the "serpent" the article should simply say that some people interpret the serpent as Satan while others interpret it as (whatever).
I haven't heard of anyone literally saying that Genesis says Satan tempted Eve -- rather the common (prevalent?) belief about Satan tempting Eve is a conclusion or interpretation.
It's similar to the verse "the saints who had fallen asleep were raised" quoted in discussions of the rapture. The phrase fallen asleep is usually interpreted as meaning "died" althought the text is always quoted as "fallen asleep."
Nonetheless, I am not going to fight with you on this. Restore the deleted text, if you wish.

Ed Poor

An afterthought: I just read the Satan article, which says Later Christian theologies interpreted this serpent to be Satan, to the point where many American Christians are unaware that the actual Hebrew text does not identify the snake as Satan. I think there is confusion between the word "Satan" and the concept of Satan.

The word "Satan" does not, of course, appear in Genesis. It is possible that some "unread" people are unaware that Genesis uses only the word "serpent" or "snake".

I propose including both ideas in the article:

that some people think Genesis specifically mentions "Satan", and
that many people (knowingly) interpret the serpent as meaning Satan

Still, as I have been chided several times recently for unwarranted deletions, I will leave the text alone for a while. Let's try for consensus, please. -- Ed Poor

Well, I just made some changes that I hope both RK and Ed Poor (and of course others) will agree are accurate and consistent with NPOV.

First I identified "theologians" as "christian" -- it is my understanding that original sin as discussed here is an issue for Christians. If I am wrong, I hope someone will add to my change to make it more accurate/complete. But I do think that just to write "theologians" is a little too vague and broad.

Also, I made a minor revision to Ed's re-write. Since I believe that people can interpret texts however they want to, it is hard for me to call any particular interpretation as "mistaken," so I appreciate Ed's point. Nevertheless, I think it is very important in articles such as these to distinguish between the plain text and various interpretations. My point is not at all to privilege one interpretation, just to make clear what is an interpretation and what isn't. This is why, Ed, I see no reason for providing some authoritative citation or authority to prove that "satan is not in the Genesis story. All you need to do is read Genesis 3 without any assumptions and you see that Satan just isn't there. Now you can certainly interpret the story to see Satan's presense there. I know many do -- and for that reason this interpretation must be explained in an article.

But it must be explained in such a way that readers will not leave the article thinking that this is the only interpretation, or that this is not an interpretation at all but a simple reading of the text. I consider these two provisos absolutely crucial for an NPOV article. SR

I agree with you, SR, and perhaps I am biased because for my entire adult life I have believed that the serpent mentioned in Genesis is a symbol for Satan (see Unification Church/fall of man). Certainly my church's interpretation is not the only one. I don't even know whether it is a common one or a relatively rare one. In any case, it is absolutely not a simple reading of the text; you are 100% right about that. We have each given our reasons, and at this point I think I trust you better than I trust myself to write neutrally about this, so I am going to bow out. Thank you for your courteous attention to this matter. Ed Poor

-- Ed Poor writes "The claim that people mistakenly assume that Satan is part of the Adam and Eve story in the Bible needs to be attributed to a scholar or other authority."

I would have to disagree The fact that many people have this belief is well known; it isn't contested by anyone. RK

"I haven't heard of anyone literally saying that Genesis says Satan tempted Eve"

I have! In fact, most Chrisitians I have ever met has said precisely this, including Catholics and liberal Protestants. This is also true for Christian publications I have read, and broadcasts that I have heard on TV and radio. Its a very mainstream Christian belief. I am not going to unilaterally change the text of the article, but I just wanted to address these two points. RK

As an ex-Southern Baptist, I find this conversation an amusing diversion from some of the others in which I have been involved during my admittedly short tenure here on Wikipedia. ;) F. Lee Horn

Meaning of the story

Some people attribute the expulsion from Eden as punishment for disobeying God's commandment. Others interpret the fruit as the symbol of something so precious that Adam and Eve would risk their lives to "eat of it."

May I have clarification of what is meant by the phrase: — also have a role in participating in their salvation In its context, this is put in contrast to Calvinism, as though Calvinists do not believe that man has a role in participating in their salvation. I wonder, what sort of calvinist is that? What would salvation be if it can't be participated in, or if the calvinist has no role in it? Certainly not one that follows Calvin or any of the Reformed confessions. Unless, what is meant is, — also have a role in making their salvation possible — or also have a role in accomplishing their salvation This would be a true contrast with Calvinism. It is true that calvinism excludes the idea that salvation is a shared accomplishment of God and Man, and it's certainly true that according to calvinism Man contributes nothing of himself that makes salvation possible. Are either of these alternatives acceptable to the authors of the original statement? Mkmcconn

also have a role in accomplishing their salvation would I think be closer to what was intended. Another option would be also have a role in working out their salvation. In that middle ground, God's grace is completely necessary for salvation, but the proper exercise of man's free will is also necessary, in contrast to John Calvin's picture of salvation as "the holy rape of the unsuspecting soul" where no free will is involved. Wesley

Yikes. Where does Calvin say that? No, it is absolutely essential to calvinism as it is believed and taught, that God's decree "does no violence" to free will. It is synergism, but not in the Eastern Orthodox sense, because it is not freedom of will in the Eastern Orthodox sense. Mkmcconn 16:21 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

On this point I disagree. Calvin did make clear that men have no free will. That is the basis of Calvinist doctrin. In the Institutes Calvin wrote, "In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of Scripture, we assert that by an eternal and immutable counsel God has once for all determined both whom He would admit to salvation, and whom He would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on His Gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom He devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment." Man is elected by God based on God's whim, and free will is a sham. End of story. We need to rewrite the article on Canvinism and on Predestination to reach this teaching, even if we personally find it to be repugnant and immoral. RK

Calvinists even today clearly teach that man's actions have no bearing at all on whether or not we can be saved. All of choices are meaningless, and we have no ability whatsoever to affect our afterlife outcome. This is made crystal clear in this quote:

According to Calvinism, our salvation comes from the almighty power of the Triune God. The Father chose us; the Son died for us; and the Holy Spirit makes all this known to us. Without the intervention of the Spirit, we could not know Christ's death. Thus, our response by faith and repentance could not happen because of the clouding of our sin that blinds us to His Word and call. Without the power and intervention of the Spirit, we could not become Christians, because we could not obey the Gospel. Therefore, the entire process of our election, redemption, and regeneration is solely by the work of God. It is by grace alone, through our faith alone. Thus God, not we, determines who will be recipients of the gift of salvation.

..."Unconditional Election" means to select or to choose. God chose us by His purpose. PERIOD. It was by nothing else, neither by our means nor His foreknowledge. (Romans 9:15,21; Eph. 1:3-14; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; 2 Tim. 1:9-10) This doctrine states that God chose those with whom He is pleased to bring to them knowledge of Himself. This is not based upon any merit by anyone. Thus, the object of His grace is not based upon looking down the corridor of time to discover who would accept the offer of the Gospel of Christ. God has elected us based solely upon the His own Will for us, to do good works, which do not save us. (Ephesians 2:10; 1 Peter 2:10)

Aha, so salvation has nothing to do with the life of that person on the earth? Everything, including churches, "good deeds", criminality, etc. does not influence one's salvation? So why do calvinists evangelize?--charon 17:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Source of quote

I looked at the source of that quote, and found this in the same discussion, discussing total depravity:

As far as “free will” goes, of course we have “free will!” Calvin spent most of his writings discussing this fact. He taught that we have responsibility, and duty to faith and prayer, three areas that require free Will. The doctrine of “faith alone” is a demonstration of our Will to choose, and we do choose to accept His amazing gift of grace (to what extent is a matter of debate in Reformed circles). However, we cannot choose it if we do not know about it, and that is the point of this doctrine. Sin is in the way of our choosing, so the Holy Spirit lifts our sin and our Will out of the way.

This same writer clearly supports the notion of free will in calvinism. I'll try to do some more reading, including finding the source of the quote I mentioned earlier. Wesley

I understand that some Calvinist apologists will bend over backwards to prove that this also allows for man to have free will. But that is clearly an irrational position, made out of emotional desperation. Some people have an innate desire to accept certain beliefs as true, even when they are morally repelled by them on an intellectual level. Thus thus affirm that both mutually contradictory beliefs are true, even if that is impossible. This is equivalent to claiming that 1 = 2. You can say that you believe it to be true, but deep down inside you know that there is a contradiction, and that this cannot possible be true. RK

Catholic Encyclopaedia entry on Predestination

It will be acceptable to me if it is re-written to include this view, but not if it is re-written to this conclusion. The doctrine of predestination is not only morally repugnant, it is contradicted, if freedom of will in the calvinist understanding of it is removed. The same objections that you are raising here, could be raised about orthodox Christology, or the doctrine of the Trinity, or any number of other things that Christians call "mystery" and the world calls "nonsense". If the aim of the Christian faith were to systematize the logical conclusions based upon the presupposition that reason is autonomous, it would be Enlightenment humanism, not Christianity. Mkmcconn

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that Christianity is illogical? That reason plays no role in theology? I would have thought that most enlightened Christian theologians would argue that faith complements reason, rather than contradicting it. soulpatch

No, I am saying that reason is not autonomous. It is subject to rules not of its own making. So, it doesn't matter in orthodoxy, whether autonomous reason says "the Trinity is illogical. 1+1+1=3 gods". That is not how it adds up, in orthodoxy. The Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three persons, and this is the one God of Christianity. This is not only logical in orthodoxy, it is necessary to logic as orthodoxy understands logic. Likewise in christology: autonomous reason may say "Chalcedon asserts an impossibility". But orthodoxy will always answer that "possiblility" must include as a minimum what is true, therefore autonomous reason is asserting an impossibility if it will not submit to what is true. And I might as well add, to stay on topic, Original sin involves the same challenges to autonomous reason. Mkmcconn

Well, not to belabor a point, and I hate to sound dense, but I reread your paragraph several times, and I still don't understand your argument. I tried to speculate on what I think you are saying, and started to write a response, and I just deleted what I wrote beause I realized I have no idea. You kind of lost me when you talked about "autonomous reason". To me, "reason" refers to the rules and procedures of drawing conclusions based on premises. If you get a contradiction somewhere, it is because the premises are contradictory or else your application of those rules and procedures is faulty. So I really don't know what you mean by "autonomous reason", except that it sounds like a vaguely Kantian reference.

I think you really lost me when you said "as Orthodoxy understands logic". You seem to be saying that Christian or Orthodox "logic" is somehow different than logic as the rest of the scientific and philosophical world understands it. Is logic not logic? This is like saying, "sure it sounds illogical to you, but that's because you don't 'understand' logic the way I do", which is a convenient way of settling an argument but it gets you nowhere. It just means you can justify anything you want to, and reason gets thrown out the window. I just find this hard to believe that Christian theologians in general take this position, though. soulpatch

I think that soulpatch has it on the head. We have here a case where Christians are claiming that their faith makes senseless claims, and that these claims are essential to Christianity. They are affirming in their own way what Tertullian wrote about Christian theology: "We believe it because it is absurd." Given the statements from classical Christian sources, and from the Talk sections in Wikipedia articles, it seems as if Christianity is predicated on abandoning logic and reason, and demanding that its adherents believe mututally contradictory positions. Unless I am mistaken, a Christian must believe that 1 + 1 +1 = 1, and believe that "free will" is the same as "predestination, where no free will exists", etc. RK

Maybe we can describe this view accurately, but I honestly don't know how to do this without making Christianity appear irrational. Wesley's and Mkmcconns's latest statements are an honest defense of Christianity, from a Christian point of view. However, to a non-Christian like me it appears as if they are ridiculing Chrisitianity, by making it into a faith that depends on being irrational. Yet I know that this isn't so. I just am at a loss. Any effort I make to be NPOV or pro-Christian results in me being told that I am describing Christianity wrong; Yet all the defenses of Christianity look to me like attacks on it. If I am reading this right, we are being told that Christianity is a religion that one cannot hold, unless one abandons logic and critical thinking. (And we're back at Tertullian again) RK

Well, Tertullian was a bold man, and his over-boldness got him removed from the Church, and opened him to believe a lot of absurd things. Orthodoxy (little 'o') is, the word of God and the understanding of the church; as opposed to "free thought" and heresy. Closer to the idea is the maxim, "I believe, that I may understand". Logic works in exactly the same way (an ordinary, human way); however, it is informed and limited in a very unordinary way, so that what amounts to "understanding" in the church is not the same thing as "understanding" outside of the church. As for it being mainline; I guess that depends on how you distinguish the main line. From the broad survey of history, what I'm saying about logic is the main line of Christian thinking, and what most Christian theologians are saying at the moment (let's think of Spong, as an example), is simply put, "unbelief", a failure to understand. Mkmcconn

There are a lot of things that I can believe but don't understand, but that doesn't have anything to do with the logic of the belief. I believe in quantum mechanics and black holes, both of which I only dimly understand at best. That doesn't make either of those phenomena illogical. I accept that my limited knowledge or intellect may prevent me from understanding them--but I still believe, and I have confidence that there is a logic that lies behind the conclusion that those things are true and exist. By analogy, it is perfectly possible for someone to believe a tenet of religious faith that they don't understand, without that implying that the belief in question contradicts conventional logic. But by the same token, I don't just accept any old claim if that claim clearly does defy logic. But what you seem to be saying is that Christian logic is different from logic as it is applied everywhere else in human experience. This viewpoint just boggles my mind, to be quite honest. I really thought that attempts by various people in Church history to apply reason and logic to Christian theology was a part of its history. To say that Christian logic is different from everyone else's really makes any kind of dialogue or common language impossible, not to mention the fact that it presumptuously absolves Christianity from any kind of evaluation of its truth claims by outsiders. It does serve a convenient purpose for making Christianity immune from criticism, though. (And, by the way, Spong doesn't have "unbelief", any more than anyone else whose theology differs from orthodox Christianity has unbelief. That is a terribly orthodoxocentric way of looking at it. It's like the Romans claiming that Christians were atheists because they didn't believe in the Roman gods. From that perspective, Judaism or Baha'i or Islam is also "unbelief" because it differs from certain Christian points of view. Spong definitely has a set of religious beliefs; they are just different ones.) soulpatch

I didn't really say that Christian logic is different, though. Not exactly. I said that Christianity is informed differently, and this other information has rules, according to which ordinary logic is able to meaningfully operate. And, according to those rules, Spong is an irrationalist (it's not really about Spong that's at issue, of course; I'm barely familiar with his work). Mkmcconn

I would point out that aving "unbelief" isn't the same as being an "irrationalist", although in any case Spong does not, as I mentioned earlier, have "unbelief". As for your other statement, I still don't really understand your point. I think I am officially throwing in the towel in trying to discuss this. I can't even follow your position clearly enough to respond to it in a meaningful way. soulpatch

I'm sure it's my fault, for being unclear. However, reading over what I've written it does state my mind sufficiently: unbelief is an irrational treatment of the revelation of God. Spong has "beliefs" (that's not saying much), but he does not "believe" - the implicit reference in the latter case is to the truth claims (if you will), of the Church. Unbelief does not accept as true, what is revealed in the Church so that we may know the truth; and furthermore, in Spong's case, he irrationally asserts that this rejection of truth is what is meant by faith, and does so (again irrationally) as though he is expressing not only his own beliefs, but the Belief of the Church. Anyway, it's too much to expect agreement on everything for lots of reasons. But maybe out of this discussion, a fair representation of the disagreement can be agreed upon. Mkmcconn

Well, the church may declare someone as irrational if they disagree with them, and to me this is a case of extreme hubris, but there isn't really any point in debating that matter, since we obviously are not going to agree. But I do want to say one thing about Spong. Spong doesn't claim that he is expressing the belief of the Church. If you read his most recent book, you will see that he most clearly states his opposition to what the church is promulgating and he calls for what her terms a "new Reformation". He has made it quite clear that his views differ quite strongly from those of Christian orthodoxy, and he doesn't pretend otherwise. soulpatch

Christians want to be understood - I just want to assure you that I don't want to intentionally confuse you; and I'm quite sure that I do understand your difficulty and I apologize for not finding a more acceptable way of expressing myself. It may be interesting for you to compare my reaction to your comments, and your reaction to mine. It's a remarkable thing to hear the effort to conform to orthodoxy called, "hubris". But it goes right off my charts of the known universe, when a man whose office charges him to protect orthodoxy from its enemies, uses that office to make credible the entire jettison of orthodoxy, and then I risk offending if I call that man irrational. But I do not wish to offend, and I regret that I failed to be sensitive. I do appreciate the efforts that people make here, to understand one another. Thanks. Mkmcconn

I never thought you were trying to confuse me. I just think that your view of reason and faith and truth are really quite different than my own, and I just couldn't get a handle on why you felt the way you did. As for Spong, I can't comment on what his office charges him to do, because I am not an Episcopalean and I don't really know what that church charges his office to do. My admiration for him has to do with his ideas, with which I find much agreement, and what I consider to be his valiant efforts at rescuing his faith. You don't have to like what he says, but I do have a major problem with calling him "irrational". His views are, in my mind, significantly more rational than most of the tired old dogma of Christian orthodoxy. But, of course, that's just my opinion. But my point is that a difference of opinion does not make the other party "irrational". The thing is that a talk page on Original Sin is not really the forum for going into this sort of deep philosophical debate, so I've actually been trying to steer my way out of doing that here. soulpatch

RK, and soulpatch, I really appreciate your sincerity in trying to understand. I think I see how confusing it can be. Let me try again. Post-Enlightenment 'rationalists' also tend to be empiricists, generally only trusting information received through the senses, or that others have received through their sense, and of course logical deductions from that information. From time to time, scientists make new observations that contradict old theories; perhaps they invent more powerful telescopes, microscopes, or other instruments. When that happens, naturally they double-check their equipment, but if the observation appears valid, they start trying to adapt their theories of physics and chemistry and whatnot to explain it. Well, Christian epistemology accepts information both from the senses and from divine revelation; there's an additional source of information which is presumed to be reliable. Given that premise, and the truths revealed in the Bible as historically interpreted by the Church, Christians do use logic to work out the implications, ramifications and so on. But just as a scientist will reject a theory that is incompatible with trustworthy observations, traditional Christians will reject a theology that is incompatible with the truths they have been given by divine revelation, usually indirectly via the Church. If something like the Trinity doesn't 'make sense', that doesn't change the fact that God has revealed Himself to us as Trinity. It doesn't make sense to me that light can have properties of both matter and energy; it ought to be either energy or matter, not both. It doesn't make sense to me that glass can be classified as a liquid by some scientists, when it certainly appears solid to a layman like me. A number of phenomena still defy even physicists' understanding and logic, but that doesn't mean they don't occur. Many things I tell my children about the world and how things work don't make sense to them because they don't have the categories to understand what I tell them, but that doesn't mean what I'm telling them is illogical or false.

In Eastern Orthodoxy, sometimes there is also a different form of logic employed, very similar to the Eastern logic of Hinduism or Buddhism. This usually looks like a higher tolerance for holding two seemingly contradictory things together; often they'll say that both statements have to be made together to balance each other, to adequately describe what is. They also use more apophatic theology and try to draw fences around the truth to show where it is, rather than systematically define it the way Thomas Aquinas did. Thus the Roman Catholic church developed a doctrine of transubstantiation that tried to spell out in great detail how the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist, while the Eastern Church simply repeats, "this is His Body and Blood" and refuses to get any more specific than that, lest they step outside the bounds of what they actually have received and know. Perhaps our ideas of logic are more determined by our culture than we would care to admit. Wesley 16:28 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

Wesley, thank you for taking the time to try to explain your position clearly. My goal was not to debate orthodox Christian views on revelation, which I generally disagree with, but to understand the ways that orthodox Christians believe that logic interacts with their faith. soulpatch

I understand; I wasn't trying to debate or persuade either. The short form is that the core doctrines founded on revelation are treated like objective observations that logic can then try to explain and maybe even build upon; they are not treated like theories or hypotheses that can later be 'reasoned away'. Doing so would be like using abstract logic to 'prove' that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, as Aristotle did. I suppose you can treat the initial premise, that the core doctrines are true and genuine divine revelation, as the faith part, and I can understand why you and many others disagree with that. If I'm still being unclear, I won't try to belabor the point any more. Sorry for the straying from topic. Wesley

I have added the Unification Church version of Original Sin to the article. If anyone thinks this perspective is out of place in the article -- and thus deletes it -- I won't revert the deletion. --Ed Poor

There is no position that I am aware of, that claims that Jesus inherited "original sin". As far as I know, even those that claim that Jesus was an ordinary man simultaneously deny that there is any such thing as "original sin", the effects or guilt of which are inherited by all men. Is there opposition to removing the new sentence which suggests that "Jesus was without original sin" is controversial? Mkmcconn 19:20 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

If Jesus was born a man (and god), and all men inherit original sin, it stands to reason that Jesus was not without sin (provided that you are in the camp that "original sin" means we are born dirty.) I had never thought about it myself until it was mentioned in the audio commentary in "The Last Temptation of Christ". If this article was about Bigfoot, no one would object to pointing out the contradiction. Apparently it was enough of a position to be debated and found a way around, and I am doing research about this now. I would contend that most christians just hadn't thought about it before (do you think the Church would bring it up?) but thats just my personal belief.

I don't mind if you remove it since its so small, I just thought it was an interesting point. If I find any good research on it though, I'm going to add it back in. --151.

After a cursory search on the google, there is enough discussion on this to warrant a whole section. After I can find more authoritative sources, I will do so.

--151.

This is not a brand new question. Questions surrounding Jesus' divinity and humanity have been thoroughly discussed and debated for centuries. Of course the Church brings it up, it's a standard part of catechism in churches that still have a thorough catechism. The Chalcedonian Creed explicitly says that Jesus was "without sin", as I believe the book of Hebrews makes very clear, and probably other New Testament passages. See also the hymn quoted in the Incarnation article.

In Eastern Orthodox theology, we don't inherit original sin per se; that's more of a Western Christian concept. What we do inherit is a damaged or impaired human nature; damaged in that it is enslaved to its passions and desires and thus is predisposed to sin, though still possessing a measure of free will. When Christ became incarnate, he took on human nature and healed it, by his very incarnation making it whole again. Wesley

Incidentally, I meant the supposed paradox of Jesus and original sin is probably not brought up regularly, as opposed to the divinity of Christ. Kind of like the old "who did Cain marry?" Even with a good explanation you cannot get around the fact that the common sense interpretation looks like a contradiction, and it's not good form to say "because the bible says so." It looks enough like a contradiction for a lot of religious people to feel the need to account for it, and I'm not going to be the one to write in an encyclopedia that its not a contradiction because the Bible says Jesus was without sin.

Alhough I have read an explanation why Cain could find someone to marry, I haven't red one consistent reason why Jesus shouldn't inherit the "original sin" from a proponent of the doctrine. (except that there is no such a thing as inheritable OS) There are several possible options (if you know more, please inform me):

the original sin is inherited only thru fathers (this employs a somehow strange, unbiblical and unscientific reasoning)
mary was given a special exemption from OS (that makes God a receiver of persons, unrighteous and violator of free will)
jesus was not fully human (which contradicts the scriptures and violates the prophecies about him)

what it comes down to is the mechanism of inheriting of the OS, which is also a wide theological debate and brings many problems (eg. man's identity, free will, scriptural inheritability of sin and it's guilt, personal accoutability of each man, God's righteouseness, his ability to create perfectly, etc.) not to mention that the whole idea of inheritable OC has no support in the scriptures. --charon 16:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From what I've been reading lately, it looks like Catholics believe that Mary, being pure (allowing assumption into heaven) is the reason Jesus had no sin. Some protestants claim that Original Sin is passed through the spirit, not the flesh, and so Jesus is free. Most protestants I've read thus far however use the circular argument that Jesus was without sin, so he couldn't have had Original Sin. Yeah. Thats not to say that catholics are above it. I found a catholic site that quoted a theologian stating "a christ suffering from original sin is unthinkable" (referring to even things like temptation or doubt), and simply stated the notion blasphemous. Some others say that Original Sin was thrown out with the new covenant, "be as children before the lord" implying that children were pure. I've found some criticism of calvinist thought that concludes that the calvinist position is flawed. There's almost no agreement.

As for Original Sin being an inherited predisposition to sin rather than sin itself, thats kind of mentioned in the main text, but I think it needs to be stated a little more explicitly. This is what I believe and believe Jesus had, because on a purely personal level this makes the most sense to me. I'd have to believe that Jesus was susceptible to this since a) as a model of human behavior he's worthless if he isn't tempted and b) a distinction is made between his human body and everyone's perfect resurrected body. After all, he aged, was able to be wounded, had to eat (and deductively, excrete), and didn't normally violate physics by flying around like Super-Jesus or something. But again, thats just my 2 bits, and I'm not going to let that violate NPOV. My only bias here is that I think its a really interesting question.

--151.

ok, I'll agree that it's an interesting question; not only that, it's important too. :-) I think the "paradox" of Jesus and original sin is a standard part of Eastern Orthodox catechism, which means it's taught to all children and new converts. It's all part of teaching what it means for Jesus to be fully divine and fully human. Can't speak for other catechisms, but I certainly don't mean to suggest the Orthodox are the only ones. As far as bias and NPOV and so forth, I think it's important to present ideas and debates that have actually been held by at least a minority significant enough to be given a name, and identify ideas with their historical and present-day proponents. what you or i think about stuff like this doesn't really matter in an encyclopedia. Perhaps this topic does deserve a subsection in this article. Wesley

Incidentally, I know nary a thing about Orthodox christianity, but I will say that there has been a history in western christianity to emphasize Jesus' divine side at the exclusion of his human side. Unfortunately, I've also suffered the "because the Bible says so" argument many times. Here's some links I came up with, a few that offer specific info on when this issue has been addressed.

I do think it's an interesting question, and I'm sure that it would be interesting to many readers, and worth putting in or even expanding. I just doubt that there is a lot of serious theological discussion of the issue (as opposed to casual curiosity, or frequently asked questions). You do suggest that Christ's humanity is a neglected subject somehow, but I don't know why you might have this impression. It seems to me that we've heard a great deal about the humanity of Christ, especially in the last couple of centuries since it's been so common in Protestant churches not even to speak of Christ's deity. Mkmcconn

The topic of Jesus and original sin leads us into christology, doesn't it?

If Jesus is "God Himself, the Creator" and if God is perfect -- then Jesus can't have original sin.
If Jesus is a bit more human than the above, as in the Unification Church (UC) theology, then he could (A) be born without original sin (like Adam, perhaps) or (B) be born with original sin.

The interesting thing for Unificationists is that, if Jesus is an "ordinary" man who (1) was born without original sin and (2) attained perfection (in the Matt. 5:48 sense) -- then the rest of us can also reach perfection if we can be rid of original sin somehow.

I'm not sure if the UC perspective is relevant (since it has so few adherents), but it gives us a framework to compare other ideas to. --Ed Poor

Yes, this does lead into christology, which is still mostly a stub article. In Orthodoxy, it is possible for the rest of us humans to attain perfection because Jesus united the divine and human natures in his person, thereby healing our damaged human nature. He also underwent temptation without sinning. Perhaps there's actually less difference between Orthodoxy and Unificationists on this point than first meets the eye; at least there's a shared idea of human perfection made possible through Christ, though the means may differ. Wesley (making a mental note to look up Matt. 5:48 later...)

Old discussions from Talk:Fall of man were moved to Talk:Original sin/from Talk:Fall of man. -- Timwi 18:26 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What is original sin?

A. Disobedience

B. Judgement

What is the "Forbidden Fruit"

A. Knowledge

B. The (self-proclaimed) knowledge of "good" and "evil" (aka JUDGEMENT)

C. Sex

A very original perspective:

The teachings of organized religions have one thing in common. They are all based on "obedience" and fear.

When I was taught the Bible I got a much different perspective.

I was first told (by my catechism teacher) that the Bible was written in parables. She made the "mistake" of not telling me that Genesis was literal.

So when we read Genesis, my brain interpreted it as this:

God's "days" are not necessarily 24 hours.

"Adam & Eve" represented mankind.

Creation and evolution must exist simultaneously.

"Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" meant Don't Judge. This is because the labels of "good" and "evil" depend on your past experiences. Humans don't have enough experience to judge properly, as God does. We only live (or remember) one lifetime. God knows the entire "plan".

The Roman Catholic Church teaches the adults that original sin is DISOBEDIENCE.

Yet my catechism teacher (without omitting a word or adding any revision) taught me that the "forbidden fruit" is JUDGEMENT.

That means that the adult version of Christianity is based on FEAR (obedience).

The version (of original sin)I knew was based on forgiveness.

When Jesus said "Father, forgive them, he gave us an ultimate EXAMPLE of how to overcome original sin (judgement).

Please visit http://www.stanp2.50megs.com if you like more details...

The answers to both questions are B.

Don't be fooled by the teachings of organized religions.

The truth will set us free.

Best Wishes,

Rev. Stanley S. Plock

Better to be fooled by the teachings of disorganized religions? Mkmcconn

Better to inform the text with one's own intuitive meditations than to accept spoon-feedings. --LordSuryaofShropshire 01

25, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Jews don't call the Torah the Old Testament -- that isn't NPOV. Satan is not ONLY what Christians think or claim. Nor do Jews think people are born sinners.

Nor do some of us consider “Jesus” a real person let alone ‘the Word of God made flesh.’- Sparky 23:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

why are there interpretations by and would be scholarly references to the Unification Church which is well known (dangerous) cult ?

I reverted some odd edits [1] [2]. These don't seem to be quite right, but I could be wrong... -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 01:37, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

[edit] Original Sin in Catholicism

The following paragraph was added to this section, then deleted. I reverted the deletion, effectively putting it back. Here it is:

Scholastic theologians believed that original sin is passed through each generation of human being, because it effected the physical and material nature of man as well. These theologians teach that the soul is infused by God into the fertalized egg, which "stains" (macula) the soul. The teaching of the Immaculate Conception states that this staining was prevented from happening to Mary.

Before someone deletes it again, I'd like to see some explanation of why. It may not be the best summary, but it doesn't look hugely inaccurate either. If it is, then explain that and delete again. If it just needs improving, then please replace it with something better. Thanks. Wesley 04:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well for one thing, it seems to mix up "effect" and "affect" and has lots of other misspellings. Second, original sin doesn't affect the physical nature as, as is spelled out in the Catholic Encyclopedia, "Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam." Third, historically, the scholastic view was, in the west (and I'm not sure that the west differs from the East on this point, as the west largley regards original sin as a fairly pure "mysterium fidei") not original in any way with the scholastics, but is in fact the historical view of St. Paul, the Church fathers and the early councils.--Samuel J. Howard 02:52, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, for instance the article says "The Orthodox Church rejects the very common Western concept that Original Sin is some sort of inherited guilt. People are not presumed to bear personal responsibility for the acts of Adam." The common western concept???? I don't know much about Protestant theology on this point, but this is how the Catholic Church understands OS, it is the absence of Sanctifying Grace, because Adam lost it for all people. As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, Trent didn't define original sin, it merely commended the scholastic view, so as far as I can tell there is no reason to contrast the RC and OC teachings. In addition, the seperation out of NT view from the OC and RC sections seems to suggest that the OC and RC do not hold a NT view of OS. If there is some particular protestant understanding, perhaps that should be contrasted, but not the RC, NT, and OC views, where there doesn't seem to be anything to contrast (certainly the UC and LDS views are different, given their radically different Christologies, and such). (BTW, is there a reason that the UC is given as a subhead of the OC, that makes no sense to me.)

Also, the LDS section wrongly suggests that there is a "negative" view of OS in the orthodox Christian churches: "Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (also known as Mormons) acknowledge that the actions of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden brought about the Fall. However, rather than lament this choice, Mormons recognize that the Fall was an essential part of God's plan for mankind. Therefore, rather being an obstacle placed by Satan in a attempt to foil the purposes of God, it was a momentous progression in God's plan of happiness for His children. It was a downward, but a forward step to return mankind back to the presence of God."

But Catholics and others explicitly endorse this view. Consider the Easter Chant, the Exultet:

"What good would life have been to us, had Christ not come as our Redeemer?

"Father, how wonderful your care for us! How boundless your merciful love! To ransom a slave you gave away your Son.

"O Happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!"

Arghhh, there's a lot of stuff wrong with the article I am realizing as I read it through carefully. I'm gonna message it as factually disputed.--Samuel J. Howard 03:06, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the divide between East and West on this issue, I think it starts with Augustine. While he wrote in Latin and was widely read in the West, he wasn't widely read in the East until I think the 18th century or so when he was finally translated to... either Greek or Russian, can't remember which now. In any case, his take on original sin and guilt isn't entirely harmonious with how the East reads the other Fathers.

It's also connected with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It's my understanding that the East doesn't share this doctrine because (a) it wasn't really very widespread in the first millennium; and (b) their understanding of Original Sin renders the Immaculate Conception unnecessary; theologically, it doesn't matter, while to Roman Catholics it does.

Regarding that Easter hymn... what I've been told is that at least some of the Fathers taught that Christ would have become Incarnate for our benefit whether or not humanity had sinned; if we had not sinned, it would have been to fully unite the divine and human natures in His person and lead us to fuller communion and union with God. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this picture seems different than the hymn you quoted that calls Adam's sin "necessary". But I will agree, you're right about the spelling problems in that paragraph. Wesley 03:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I want to address is the idea that LDS people have a positive view of Original Sin as opposed to other Christian churches that have a negetive view of Original Sin. Perhaps the article would be better if it said that LDS people believe that their view of the Fall of Adam and Eve is more positive than that of most other Christian religions. Having been raised LDS I will quickly admit that my understanding of Original Sin in other churches is extremely limited. So I'll explain a little better what I know, and maybe someone can point out how other churches differ. The LDS church teaches no doctrine titled "Original Sin" The only doctrine I can name specifically is that of The Fall of Adam and Eve. LDS people believe that the fall was completely necessary. Mankind had to be separated from God for the purpose of the world to be accomplished, in order for that to happen a trangression had to take place. Adam and Eve are highly respected for transgressing and making the sacrifice of being cast out of God's presence. Furthermore, human bodies and spirits have nothing inherently wrong with them. Being away from God's presence and being tempted by Satan is what causes mankind to sin, and need the forgiveness through the sacrifice of Christ. With this in mind LDS people believe infant baptism to be an incorrect practice, and do not allow anyone to be baptised before they turn eight years old. They also accept that anyone who dies before the age of eight is still "innocent," and will inevitably return to God's presence. As far as a positive or negetive view of Original Sin, LDS people percieve the beliefs of most other Christian religions to be that all mankind is born 'unclean' and from birth need the Grace of God. They also percieve that most other churches believe that Adam and Even 'messed up' the plan. That mankind was meant to stay in the Garden of Eden, and were it not for them all of us would be there in paradise right now. In essence we see other churches teaching that the separation from God was not orginally intended, and mankind suffers now because of it. And in essence we teach that the separation from God was intended, and because of it mankind has the opportunity to repent and live with God and appreciate it more because of the sorrow we experience here. This response turned out longer than I indended, but I hope it's clear. I'll go ahead and change the article to reflect some of what I said here. If someone can explain to me how other churches differ or are similar to the LDS church then I would appreciate it. Starfoxy

[edit] (minor) Conformity of headings

Just a little note... perhaps someone wants to change the case of "Sin" in the headings to match all the other cases? I'm currently hot on a trail. ;) (Really reading up on some things, and I don't want to get sidetracked) Jdstroy 03:08, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

EDIT: Forgot to sign it. Ack.

[edit] Summary thus far

Summary: There is disagreement over this concept. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an advocacy site for a single sect, then it behooves Wikipedia to give all (or at least the larger) sides of the disagreement rather than try to hash out a single result--leave that for more specialized forums. Dogface 15:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Original sin in The New Testament

The the text of the New Testament is subject to interpretation. There are more methods of interpretation leading to contradictory meanings. Therefore, any single interpretation of the text without including other interpretations is biased. Since there are other interpretations that say the NT text does not teach original sin, I dispute the NPOV of the paragraph "Original sin in The New Testament". Furthermore, I dispute the NPOV and accuracy of the statement that the doctrine of original sin is shared by most Christian churches. --charon 13:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________

I find it odd that there are section headings for certain Churches but not a section on Protestant views in general or any mention of either Luther or Calvin, both of whom had strong views on the topic! [S. Slater] March 1, 2005

I think that the lack is due to the fact that for orthodox Anglicans the term 'Original Sin' is the name of an eroneous Catholic dogma, I don't think many protestants would be dropping by this particular article. --Gorgonzilla 02:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protestantism section

I added a two paragraph overview; it's a start, anyway. Still need to make mention of grace and justification, I think, and perhaps of baptism and prevenient grace. KHM03 17:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Abrahamic mythology

Ok folks, sorry about the rv war, but Jim Ellis refuses to concede that since this article is about a topic that fits the definition of a myth, as given in mythology, and since it contains the actual myth itself, the revisions are needed. See my talk page for more details. FestivalOfSouls 19:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert war, FoS. I will refrain from additional reverts even though I disagree. I've got too much to do besides clean up after you. I see a difference between an article on the story of Adam and Eve (Mythology) and the doctrine of Original Sin (a doctrine, not a story). Jim Ellis 19:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I accept your appology. I am sorry that you cannot see that I am actually being quite neutral and consistant with my edits. I would look forward to discussing this with you in the future if you are willing. FestivalOfSouls 19:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Please stop proselytizing for your perspective. Let articles on religion stand as articles on religion. I suggest that you may find a much less controversial way of accomplishing your goal, if you sub-categorize the Category:Religion category, rather than messing with the articles themselves. This is much more likely to acheive a uniform result, to avoid edit wars about what is or is not history, and it does not require assent to the derogatory overtones of "Mythology" as they are most keenly felt in the particular articles where you are trying to do this. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for stepping on people's toes, but that doesn't make the category any less appropriate. Although, I do like the idea of placeing religion as a subcategory of mythology, but that sort of shotgun method would also catch modern, non-mythical events and items(such as council of trent...). I appologize for the so-called derogotory overtones of "Mythology", but I have to work with what I have, I cannot think of a better word to call the category, but If you can, feel free to rename it. I suppose I could sub-categorize religion, however, most of the articles in question are already categorized as religion in general, and that is good enough for me. They all are missing the mythology category, which makes that much more urgent to add. FestivalOfSouls 20:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

In doing so, you are promoting a point of view. New users will have to be educated by you and any cohorts you might enlist, to make sure that they fall in line with your agenda. It is a perspective, and an argument. It invites edit wars. Please avoid setting us up for the criticism (perfectly justified under your policy) that Wikipedia is hostile toward religious topics, and "for example, labels Jesus and Original sin as Mythology". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you so biased you don't even see what you are saying? Why would new users have to be educated? it should be assumed that the wiki is factual, and includes facts... How is that an agenda? Sure it might promote edit wars, but that does not make the edit any less true, or any less valid. People debate about just about anything...That doesn't mean that facts should be repressed because of it. I fail to see how that critisism would be "justified" any more than the critisism "that Wikipedia is hostile toward fact and promotes religion, and "for example, refuses to label Jesus and Original sin as Mythology"." The other side of the coin is what we face right now. You have yet to give one good reason why the label is not appropriate, only red herrings. So people might argue over it. Big deal. If I get 2 guys to argue over the gender of a duck, does the duck cease to have a gender? So what people might be offended by it. I am sure that some Islamics might be offended by an article on jesus, does that mean it should be removed? better yet, some muslims are offended by the site of female's skin, does that mean we should peel the skin off of all females to avoid offending them? FestivalOfSouls 21:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

What I am saying is that your perspective will not be shared unless you indoctrinate every user, one user at a time, whoever dares to step in to remove the Category of "Mythology" from these articles. It will certainly promote edit wars, because it insists that your perspective is the right one. It does not present conflicting point of views, it uses the Category feature to pass judgment on contradicting points of view. That is not neutrality.

The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct. Your use of the Category feature is violating this shared understanding of a neutral point of view, and that's why the action is - and must inevitably remain - controversial. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I call BS. Leaving out critical information is not neutral. If I were to say I was a observer and say Harry kill Sally, I could not call myself neutral if I left out the information that Sally attacked Harry with a steak knife after throwing a pot of boiling water in his face, could not be subdued, and that she only died because Harry pushed her away in defence and she tripped and fell on her knife. Omission can be just as much of a bias. What do you mean my perspective wont be shared and would have to be explained to each user? It is fairly obvious logic, namely calling things what they are. If it fits a category's definition, it fits in the category... what part of that is not immediatly obvious? Isn't the entire concept of categories based on that? Are you saying users are too stupid to understand what a category is? Wow you are insulting. The only reason it is controversial is that certain users insist on manipulating the religios articles to look like they are more than they really are, and these users are upset that someone is rocking the boat and calling apples fruit (wow a category!!! must I explain to you on an induvidual basis how THAT one works, too?). I think you underestimate your fellow man. People grew up with categorization their whole lives, this should not be difficult. Think Sesame Street. "One of this things doesn't belong" was a categorization game. FestivalOfSouls 21:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

If you put the category Mythology on the Apple page, then yes, you will have to explain that one to me, too. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure you can read? I was using an analogy of categorising apples as fruit. Do you have to explain that to every user that comes by? no, it is obvious, and it would be asinine to fight that categorization for religious reasons. Keep your pro-religion bias of wikipedia. FestivalOfSouls 21:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue is, "Original sin" is a doctrine. You are categorizing it as "Mythology" the way that I would categorize the "Apple myth" about Eve. Let articles on religion retain their neutral categories. Present the perspective that they are mythology neutrally, within the article itself, instead of abusing the Category feature as you are doing, please. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This article contains the myth itself. Read it. Oh and, it is not just "the apple myth" that relates to Eve, but she herself would be a myth. The problem with presenting the perspective that they are myths in text is that they would fail to appear on the category page. FestivalOfSouls 15:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I was naive enough to think that I had actually persuaded you to play nice. Please use the article itself to explain the perspective that the doctrine of "Original sin" is a myth, or directly pertains to mythology. Please do not use the Category feature to over-rule the process of collaborative editing. (And I apologize for the obscurity of my "apple" reference. It didn't help us). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me put it simply... If the article is about a myth, a significant item from a myth (zeus, icarus, god, mount olympus, jesus) then it gets the categorization. Feel free to explain in the article why it is not a myth. FestivalOfSouls 18:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No, rather, first explain in the article what it has to do with mythology, and then it can be considered whether the Category "Abrahamic Mythology" applies. Without content in the article making this perspective explicit, it is not self-explanatory, why this article ends up categorized that way. It's just laziness and a bit of a tyrannical streak, that prevents you from seeing your way clear to doing this in a collaborative way. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I somehow see "This article is in the category abrahamic mythology because it contains an abrahamic myth" as being un needed. The content of the article (shall we say.. the "myth" in the article? hmm lets look up the definition of the word, yeah, it would be a myth alright) is pretty self explanititory on that one. It is just fanatical religiousness that prevents you from admitting that. Feel free to collaborate and add the appropriate text as you see fit, just please stop lying to the reader by ommission. FestivalOfSouls 18:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"Fanatical religiousness" might be my problem, or uncharitableness might be yours. I'm sure anyone reading this exchange will form their own opinion. Please use the Category feature appropriately, and you will not have as much difficulty in seeing your point of view represented. As I've said before, I think that you will obtain a more uniform result if you would use Sub-categories, instead of defacing the religious articles with your unexplained evaluation of their content. And, since evidently you mean by "mythology" what others might mean by "theology", I think that it would be a far less disruptive route to take, if you would sub-categorize theology as mythology (providing, of course, that this point of view is adequately explained in the appropriate articles. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Myth

I don't necessarily object to the section "Original sin and mythology", but I do believe that several sentences don't belong here ("myth" ought to be explained on the article for Myth, not here), and also that the rest can be placed within the rest of the text. Thoughts? KHM03 01:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish View

In the opening section, a number of statements are made which do not conform with anything written in the Bible. For example, the Bible no where states that originally Adam and Eve enjoyed a great deal of communion with God, nor that they shared an intimate relationship with each other or with nature. Likewise, no diminishment of that communion or those intimate relationships is at all indicated after the sin. On the contrary, the fact that God made garments for Adam and Eve indicates that though he was "angry" with them, he nevertheless maintained His relationship with them. Also, the phrase "distortion of the relationship between man and woman" seems biased. The relationship changed, most definitely, but distortion would be a point-of-view. On the whole, it would be appropriate to refer to the change in relationship between God and man as "apparent" from the text, though not explicit.

Chet Kadmon, the Hebrew term given for Original Sin, is actually a back-formation from the Christian term "Original Sin." It is not found in Jewish classical literature (at least not generally).

Adam's original mission and mankind's current mission are not clearly stated. Adam was to attain absolute perfection through exercise of freedom of choice in not eating of the Tree of Knowledge. When he failed, the world and mankind fell to a lower level, one on which it becomes impossible to attain this perfection through a single choice. Instead, a great deal of sacrifice, suffering, and proper choices must be made, first to return Mankind to its original status, and then to reach the level of perfection Adam was originally intended to reach.

Cain's murder of Abel, while related to Adam's sin, seems irrelevant here.

"Evil incarnate" and Satan carry different meanings in Jewish traditions than in Christian teachings. Satan is not viewed as a power independent of God; rather, he is created by God to appear to have power and thus challenge humanity into recognizing God on their own. This was the challenge Adam was meant to overcome, and the challenge which his descendants work to overcome to this day.

The opening line, "The concept of Original Sin is derived in part from the episode...", seems to be inaccurate: Isn't it derived entirely from this episode?

I've edited the article to far better reflect the traditional Orthodox Jewish view of Adam's sin. I have studied many traditional Jewish sources on the matter and base what I write on them, particularly Luzzato's Knowledge of the Heart, cited in the article itself.

The views cited as "Reform" and "Conservative," indicating that Adam's choice was perhaps ultimately better for mankind actually also represent a school of thought within Orthodox Judaism, put forth most notably by Elijah E. Dessler in his work Letter from Elijah (partially translated into English as Strive for Truth!). Also, based on my clarifications of the Orthodox viewpoints, few discrepancies actually exist between the interpretations of the various branches of Judaism. The main discrepancy would apparently be that Reform and Conservative Judaism believe that Adam did not have free will before he ate of the fruit of the Tree; however, this presentation of the Reform and Conservative view would seem to be incorrect, as it is intrinsically unsustainable: if Adam in fact had no free will, he would not have been able to choose to cross God's will and eat of the fruit of the tree. Some elements of bias also appear in the section on Reform and Conservative views, including the phrase "they were like robots."

I propose integrating the Reform and Conservative views into a general Jewish view, with the possible inclusion of the view that Adam's sin was actually ultimately positive as the position of some schools of thought.

Scorpiuss 19:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as there is no actual belief in the Christian concept of original sin in Judaism, why not just place that in as the "Jewish veiwpont"?

The suggestions of Scorpiuss above are good, and badly need to be implemented. The section as-is does not accurately portray Judaism. I'll see what I can do about revising that. User:NickDupree 06:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sept 8, 2005 revisions

I removed this paragraph from the Roman Catholicism section...

The Catholic Church did not accept all of Augustine's ideas (which Protestantism was to take further), in particular the opinion that involvement in Adam's guilt and punishment takes effect through the dependence of human procreation on the sexual passion, in which the spirit's inability to control flesh is evident.

While undoubtedly some Protestants view original sin as intimately connected with the procreative act, that statement isn't true of Protestantism as a whole. KHM03 15:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Much better. KHM03 19:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conflates the fall and Augustines doctrine

I went to a highly orthodox Church of England School, if a reference was being made to the Adam/Eve/Apple story in Genesis the term 'original sin' was never used, instead the term 'the fall' would be used. The term 'original sin' was uniquely identified with the Augustinian/RC doctrine of Original Sin and thus an error.

I think that the article conflates two distinct issues. The first is the interpretation of the events in Genesis as a Judaic version of Pandora's box. I don't think that the claim that this interpretation of the fall of Adam is shared by most Christian denominations is at all controvertial. But I don't think that many protestant theologians would use the term 'Original Sin' here.

The second is Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin since adopted by the Roman Catholic church as orthodox. While Calvin and Luther created their own versions of Augustine's doctrine these are very different and I don't think the article gives any clear idea of what the differences are. Augustine's position is that babies are condemned to hell from conception and that the only possible means of salvation is intervention through the church (meaning of course the orthodox Church). This is certainly not what Calvin or Luther were up to. --Gorgonzilla 01:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you try and make the edits and see how the community feels. Also, Anglican priest John Wesley, who greatly emphasized the Fall, also used the term "original sin". So maybe it just depends upon the individual's preference. KHM03 10:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, this is a long discussion page. I have a couple of comments: One is that the fruit was not an Apple, it was some random fruit. And I definitely disagree with the last paragraph of the first section. The test was obedience, not to "see what would happen". God knew what would happen, told them not to touch it, gave them the chance to choose to obey. The sin is in the disobedience.

Overall, I think that you (editors at Wikipedia) seem to be handling this difficult and controversial subject very well.

Thanks for your comments; I agree with your suggestions and will try to incorporate them. Have you considered becoming a wikipedia editor yourself? It's easy, and no harder than editing this discussion page. :-) Wesley 19:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disambiguation

yes, I think it's possible that someone might look for Original Sin (movie) at just the movie title, so I think it's worth keeping the disambiguation line. Wesley 19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doctrine of Original Sin

This is concerning the Doctrine of Original Sin as created by St. Augustine. It is my understanding that before Augustine, there was no widely accepted Christian doctrine of original sin. That Augustine created the doctrine within the historical context of the fall of the roman empire (the sacking of Rome by the barbarians), that it fit contemporary western mythology of a fall from grace (rome=body, barbarians=lust) - that the doctrine was never accepted in the eastern roman empire, where Constantinople never fell. Is this historical context of when and where the doctrine was created an appropriate theme to discuss here? --Stbalbach 16:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"That this doctrine existed in Christian tradition before St. Augustine's time is shown by the practice of the Church in the baptism of children. The Pelagians held that baptism was given to children, not to remit their sin, but to make them better, to give them supernatural life, to make them adoptive sons of God, and heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven (see St. Augustine, "De peccat. meritis", I, xviii). The Catholics answered by citing the Nicene Creed, "Confiteor unum baptisma in remissiomen peccatorum". They reproached the Pelagians with introducing two baptisms, one for adults to remit sins, the other for children with no such purpose. Catholics argued, too, from the ceremonies of baptism, which suppose the child to be under the power of evil, i.e., exorcisms, abjuration of Satan made by the sponsor in the name of the child [Aug., loc. cit., xxxiv, 63; Denz., n. 140 (96)]."[3] 212.205.255.76 17:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Catholic Church is interested in propagating Augustines conception of original sin (inherited guilt) as existing before Augustine. But the concept of inherited guilt is a purely western conception, not recognised by the eastern church, that first appeared as a doctrine with Augustine around the same time Rome is sacked by barbarians. The historical context of that conception can be seen in the political events of the day. Augustine re-interpreted the story of Adam and Eve to show that God, because of Adams disobedience, condemned the entire human race to eternal damnation (the bible never says this), "inherited guilt" was passed to all future generations through the sexual act. This vision of reason dragged down by the chaos of lawless passion and animal-instincts clearly matches the political events of the time in western christiandom, with Rome the great city representing reason, law and order brought low by the barbarians. Western christians consider this myth essential, but in the east where constantinople was never sacked by the barbarians, this myth holds no ground, as detailed in our very own article here. -- Stbalbach 18:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Stbalbach's version of the doctrine of original sin sounds to me more like Calvinism than the teaching of the Catholic Church, but even Calvinists might perhaps disown it. And I find quite fanciful Stbalbach's idea that the shock of the Visigoth sack of Rome in 410 was the real reason why Augustine formulated his rationalizations of the doctrines of original sin and divine grace, rationalizations that the Catholic Church proved unwilling to accept fully. Curious too that Stbalbach pictures those in the eastern part of the Roman Empire as feeling no great shock when Rome was sacked only fifteen years after the death of Theodosius I, the last Emperor to rule the Empire in its entirety.

In any case, Wikipedia is not the place for propounding original notions or even original serious research.

Lima 11:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Lima, Please stop taking 2 Esdras 7 out of context. Read the whole chapter. The seer, Ezra, is having a theological debate with the Angel of the Lord, on Original Sin. The verse I quoted is the Angel's statement. The verse you quoted is Ezra's reply, where he is arguing with the Angel and saying "But how can this be so if we are all guilty through Adam?". You have to keep reading the whole chapter and all of the Angel's answers to Ezra. Doctrine is taken from what the Angel says, not from what Ezra says in trying to quarrel with the Angel. I am starting to get the feeling like you are the one who will be pointing the finger alongside the Great Accuser, since it seems Highly important to you that all humanity be tainted for something Adam did. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The main point is that Codex Sinaiticus has failed to quote any source whatever for his statement that the Oriental Orthodox Churches "totally reject the concept of original sin". Faced with evidence that the Armenian Apostolic Church does believe in original sin, he still wants to claim that the other Oriental Orthodox Churches reject the concept, but he still has not quoted even one source about the teaching of even one of those Churches to substantiate his claim. The Wikipedia rule is: "Content ... must be verifiable." It is two weeks since I asked him politely and privately, on his Talk page, to quote some source for his statement. Though I made the request three times, he gives no source. It seems fair at this stage to conclude that his claim is not verifiable.

Let me assure Codex Sinaiticus that I have read the whole of chapter 7 (and of the book) and all of the Angel's answers to Ezra/Esdras. I have found no denial by the Angel of the remark about the evil effects of Adam's sin (verse 48/118), any more than the Angel denied Esdras/Ezra's previous remark that the intercessory prayers of the righteous are effective now, before judgment day (verses 36-41 / 106-111). Would Codex Sinaiticus please quote the verse where he thinks the remark about Adam is disapproved.

Indeed the Angel seems to agree with Esdras/Ezra's remark about Adam's sin. In verses 10b-12 we read:

And he said to me, "So also is Israel's portion. For I made the world for their sake, and when Adam transgressed my statutes, what had been made was judged. And so the entrances of this world were made narrow and sorrowful and toilsome; they are few and evil, full of dangers and involved in great hardships."

Would Codex Sinaiticus also explain how he can maintain that 2 Esdras 7:105 supports the alleged Oriental Orthodox teaching "that each person is responsible for his or her own sins, and does not inherit guilt for those of his parents or ancestors." I quote that verse, italicized, along with its context (verses 102-105):

I answered and said, "If I have found favor in thy sight, show further to me, thy servant, whether on the day of judgment the righteous will be able to intercede for the ungodly or to entreat the Most High for them, fathers for sons or sons for parents, brothers for brothers, relatives for their kinsmen, or friends for those who are most dear." He answered me and said, "Since you have found favor in my sight, I will show you this also. The day of judgment is decisive and displays to all the seal of truth. Just as now a father does not send his son, or a son his father, or a master his servant, or a friend his dearest friend, to be ill or sleep or eat or be healed in his stead, so no one shall ever pray for another on that day, neither shall any one lay a burden on another; for then every one shall bear his own righteousness and unrighteousness."

Lima 20:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

- Why don't you go to Ethiopia and try to tell the people they are guilty of something, because you say so and you're a Roman Catholic, and see if you don't get slapped like Mussoline??? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

- - The whole concept of "Original Sin" does not come from the Bible, but was invented by Saint Augustine. Now the Lima's of the world have successfully dug up statements by peoples who had never even heard of Saint Augustine, like the Armenians, just to push Augustines doctrine on every people in the world, it's mainly their agenda against all humanity of being able to stand next to the Great Accuser on that day and say "See? You're guilty too!" But it will NEVER work in Ethiopia, because if you have a clean conscience, you are nobody's slave and answer to noone but JAH! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

- - - Sin is not something that you inherit, you do not pay the price for someone else's sins, only your own. But this teaching is why "certain" denominations have a guilt trip laid on them from the time they are born, and their "leaders" and "thinkers" aren't content

with that, they want to try to lay it on every country in the world at the same time! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We are still waiting for Codex Sinaiticus to quote a source. His personal attacks, though amusing, are no substitute. Lima 05:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This discussion was brought to my attention on my talk page. My impression after reading the discussion is that the problem is one of terminology. Lima and CS are just talking past each other. I know little of the distinctives of Oriental Orthodox theology, but from the reactions I'm seeing I'd guess they simply do not use the phrase "Original Sin" to describe their beliefs about the effects of Adam's fall. I doubt any of them would go so far as to claim that there were no effects; from what I've been able to tell their position is essentially equivalent to that of the Eastern Orthodox. (We do use the phrase, carefully defined and qualified, but I'm unsure of its origins. It may have been due to contacts with the West which the OO did not experience. Its meaning is summarized here [4] under "God and Man".) I do not doubt one may find it on an OO website or two, but the authors may have been reaching for terms to explain themselves to a Western audience language accessible to them. If this is the case, it would explain CS's difficulty in locating sources. It's very hard to demonstrate the lack of a term in a literary corpus with a single cite unless someone else has already done an exhaustive investigation.

The associations with Augustine are so strong, the metaphors used by Rome to describe it so heavily laden, the decree of the Council of Trent on the subject so problematic for the Eastern Churches (text here [5] -- sorry, but it does say "the guilt of original sin is remitted" by baptism, and that original sin is transmitted by "generation") that it may not be possible to use this phrase to discuss OO beliefs without qualifying it so heavily that it's virtually useless. It would be better, perhaps, if this article were titled something like, Fall of Adam -- I think something like this has been suggested here before. Various beliefs could then be discussed in a context free of association with terms that OO (and others) feel are objectionable.

However, I do wonder about the statement in the article, "...Mary was freed from original sin at the Annunciation, not preserved from it at her conception..." I know of no such teaching in Eastern Christianity in the sense it's apparently meant here. John (Maximovitch) of Shanghai and San Francisco writes in his book Mary the Birthgiver of God that at his birth Christ indeed "purified the female nature, rejected the bitter Eve, and overthrew the laws of the flesh", citing St. Gregory the Theologian, but he goes on to cite Sts. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great to the effect that she was not placed in a state where she was unable to sin, "but continued to take care for her salvation and overcame all temptations". That does not sound as if she was "freed from original sin" in any meaningful sense. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not asking Feqade (my probably imperfect transliteration of the Geez characters of Codex Sinaiticus's name) to demostrate the lack of the term "original sin". What I am asking him to do is to give any source for his statement that the Oriental Orthodox Churches, or any of them, "totally reject" the idea.

This article once proclaimed that the Eastern Orthodox Church denies (not just doesn't believe) the doctrine of original sin. When working on another matter, in which I had the pleasure of collaborating with Csernica, I discovered that the Eastern Orthodox Church explicitly teaches the doctrine of original sin. Anyone who comes across such evidence of false statements in Wikipedia surely has an obligation to correct the article that contains the false statements. Feqade then attributed explicit denial of original sin to Oriental Orthodox Churches. On coming later across the Armenian Church statement, I did not wish to contradict Feqade without giving him a chance to explain his statement (see his Talk page). He failed to respond. Only then did I post the Armenian statement on this page. I would be quite happy if Wikipedia made no mention of Oriental Orthodox Churches in this regard. It is Feqade who brought them in, on finding he could no longer claim that the Eastern Orthodox Church denies original sin. But I think none of us should be happy if Wikipedia unverifiably declares that the Oriental Orthodox Churches (apart from, Feqade now admits, the Armenian) positively deny ("totally reject") the doctrine.

I myself disagree with the statement on the Armenian website. I think, for one thing, that the website confuses the immaculate conception of Mary (by her mother) with her virginal conception of Jesus. But it is the website of a diocese of an Oriental Orthodox Church, and as such must be presumed to give the official teaching of that Church. The statement about the belief of the Eastern Orthodox Church on the freeing of Mary from original sin at the Annunciation is made by that site, not by me (nor by Wikipedia: the text should be rephrased; it was Feqade who removed the original opening words). I think I came across the same teaching on an Eastern Orthodox website too, but I leave it to someone else to search for it. The only book on Eastern Orthodox doctrine that I have before me (Ιερά Κατήχησις, published by the Αποστολική Διακονία of the Orthodox Church of Greece) merely says: "We call her 'All-Immaculate' because raised by the Holy Spirit's visitation upon her from all moral stain" (page 53), which may, but only perhaps, be confirmation of the Armenian statement. (The basic word here in Greek, both within "immaculate" and in "stain", means "reproach", "fault", etc.; perhaps someone else can do a better translation.)

The Council of Trent was excluding the doctrine that sin of any kind is never remitted, but is merely not imputed, and it was excluding the identification of original sin with concupiscence (which was used as an argument that sin remains, even if not imputed, since concupiscence remains after baptism). Its statements must be read in that light. In any case, they have no more to do with the question of Oriental Orthodoxy and original sin, than has the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church on original sin, as given in its Catechisms quoted on this page.

Lima 17:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have access to the properly authoritative sources in my home at the moment, but I have some very old encyclopedias, I am kind of embarrassed to quote from encyclopedias that are so old, but they do give the general idea that you find in most places you look. Here is what one of them has under the entry "sin":

Augustine maintained that Adam's sin completely corrupted his whole nature; that the corruption of his guilt and its penalty, death, pass to all his children; that man is born not merely corrupt, but in a state of sin, guilt, and liability to punishment. The Greek church continued to deny hereditary guilt, and to affirm man's will as free as Adam's before the fall. - The American People's Encyclopedia, 1954

Saying "You don't have any sources, and therefore the Greek Church teaches the same as St. Augustine" is what you have been doing up to this point. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Feqade, I do not say the Greek Church teaches the same as St Augustine. Not even the Catholic Church teaches quite the same as St Augustine.

I am not trying to say any Eastern Church teaches anything. If nothing whatever is said about their teaching, I do not worry. But I do not like teachings to be attributed to them on no authority whatever, which seem to be contradicted by their own authoritative sources.

Lima 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're still talking past each other. I think it's clear that some people simply have a gut-level revulsion to "original sin". It may be true that this reaction is founded in part on a misunderstanding of Roman Catholic teaching, mistaking some of Augustine's objectionable teachings for official dogma, but it's there and real nonetheless. It is even a reasonable reaction, to the extent that this may not be a term customarily used in other traditions, and even where it is, it lacks the theological development it underwent in the West. (Personally, I'm not convinced that we understand it the same way -- or that if we do, there's a method for reading Roman Catholic dogmatic statements with which I am deeply uncomfortable. But maybe it's just the terminological difficulty I always seem to encounter.)

I do think that a single website, official or not, cannot be held up as an "authoritative source". (Do we have much assurance that the author of the webpage understood what is meant by "orginal sin"?) Such authoritative sources as exist are probably mainly in languages other than English. I think there's at least on OO priest editing here. It would be nice if he or someone who knows of some good, reliable English-language sources would point to them.

This is all I intend to say on the subject. I took note of this discussion earlier and declined to participate in deference to my stress levels, and only jumped in to the extent I did because I was asked. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am indeed grateful to Feqade for his helpfulness in providing a source on the thought of modern Eastern Orthodox theologians and thereby bringing to my attention to term "ancestral sin". The first paragraph that I have inserted under "Original sin in Eastern Christianity" can, if desired be immediately removed. I put it in simply because 1) it is an existing Wikipedia text that mentions "ancestral sin"; 2) it responds to Csernica's enquiry about the general Orthodox view on Mary's freeing from original/ sin occurring at the Annunciation; 3) it curiously fits in with the last paragraph of the preceding section.

To Csernica: Catechisms, which are by definition books that set forth in systematic fashion a Church's teaching, and which are issued under the authority of a bishop or of a Holy Synod, must surely be considered "authoritative sources". It is not the website that is authoritive: it is the book that the website reproduces. Lima 20:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, sort of authoritative. Catechisms are pedagogical, not definitive, and in Orthodoxy anyway are not always issued by Holy Synods in any event -- although it is to be hoped that a priest who publishes one does so with the approval of his bishop! But we've had bishops who are rather outside the mainstream on any number of apparently essential, yet non-dogmatic, subjects.

Be that as it may, I was talking about the Armenian website, and checking it again I see nothing that says its source was an official publication. Could you point out where I missed it? TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Csernica and I were unfortunately talking past each other. Csernica was speaking of Oriental Orthodox. I thought he was talking about the entry just above his own entry, where Feqade and I were discussing Eastern Orthodox. The catechisms I referred to were the work respectively of a bishop clearly not outside the mainstream, and of the Holy Synod of the Russian Church, surely one of the most important Eastern Orthodox Churches. So, to no surprise of mine, Csernica and I are really in agreement.

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about Feqade and me. To begin at the end: the Angel of the Lord in 2 Esdras agrees with Esdras that we can influence each other's situation in our present life, the life in which we are affected by Adam's action (examples of interaction are given); accordingly, to speak here of the quite different Judgement Day situation is (deliberately?) misleading. I regret I must therefore delete that paragraph. It is also wrong to refer in point-of-view fashion to quite authoritative Eastern Orthodox catechisms as "scattered Orthodox sources". Why not just quote them without trying either to augment their authority (by, for instance, calling them "authoritative") or to diminish it (by calling them, unjustifiably, "scattered")?

Lima 10:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is for Orthodox bishops, especially if acting as a holy synod, to define Orthodox doctrine. Lima 19:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case, I could mention my own bishop (Tikhon of San Francisco and Los Angeles, OCA), who always uses the phrase with the definite article, "the original sin". There was a catechism issued by a Greek bishop in Canada which he (and others) have singled out as being particularly erroneous on this subject and several others. [6] If I were to ever cite this in public, I'm sure I would hear his disapproval in no uncertain terms the instant it came to his notice. So I would hesitate before labelling any Orthodox catechism as authoritative. We have no equivalent to the CCC.

Translation is a sticky business, and we've seen other examples where one word, evidently employed as a direct translation of another, nevertheless is carefully excluded from many of the implications perceived in the original.

I'm still not clear on whether the discussion was about EO or OO. The latter was my definite impression. Although I'm reasonably confident there are generalities that may be made common to both, I don't think the Fall can't be properly understood in EO without reference to the 6th Council and Maximos the Confessor. Whether OO accept or reject this (regardless of their view of the ecumenicity of the Council) I don't know. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Csernica talks sense, as usual. It is surely true that, when representatives of the Eastern Churches speak of original/ancestral sin, they exclude the implications in what they perceive as the Western interpretation or, to speak more exactly, the interpretation of Saint/Blessed Augustine. I would be grateful if Csernica would indicate what the Sixth Council said about original/ancestral sin or give me a reference, so as to spare me the trouble of finding out for myself.

I may have been mistaken about the mainstream-ness of the Canadian catechism. Still, what a canonical Eastern Orthodox bishop teaches cannot be excluded from an account of Eastern Orthodox teaching on the matter - along with the view, also given in the same section of the article, that explicitly opposes Augustine of Hippo. I presume, moreover, that the bishop Csernica refers to would not treat the catechism issued by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church as an exposition of false doctrine.

Yes, the discussion was on Oriental Orthodox until Feqade moved it to Eastern Orthodox ("Greek Church") at 18:05, 9 March 2006. Since then, it has been mainly, though not entirely, on Eastern Orthodox because of the much greater availability of sources to quote.

I do not by any means claim to be an expert on these matters. I just bring up sources that seem to contradict statements made in the article on nobody's authority but the writer's, with the hope that people like Csernica will kindly illuminate me.

Lima 05:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unification

There is no real reason for the Unification Church to have a page on their theological views of the Fall which is seperate from everyone elses, unless you were to give everyone else their own page. Nedlum 06:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no real reason for the Unification Church to be mentioned at all - they're such a minor group. PiCo 10:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that the size of any church should be grounds for exclusion. I think this page should be in the Wikipedia and should be merged into the page regarding Original Sin. If the Unification Church is a christian denomination, then it should be placed under the section regarding Christian beliefs.--kodriscoll 16:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's done. My understanding is that it isn't a Christian denomination, although my knowledge on the subject is slim. Anyone who knows more than was on the old page can fill it out. Nedlum 23:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Original Sin myths seems a slightly odd site under external links. Is it representing any major group?Obvious Child 19:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask why on earth the Unification Church is accorded prominence equal to Islam, Judaism, and Eastern and Western Catholicism? There are a much larger number in the Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, and any number of other religious groups by comparison. Unification church needs to be removed, as should Seventh-Day adventists and Latter-Day Saints.

[edit] "Believers' Baptism" and age of accountability

An editor has changed the sentence:

Several denominations deny offering infant baptism altogether, and insist baptism should be performed only to consenting or adult believers.

Several denominations deny offering infant baptism altogether, and insist baptism should be performed only to confessing believers.

I have changed it to:

Several denominations deny offering infant baptism altogether and insist that only persons who have reached the "age of accountability" should be baptized.

Does anyone think we should add the reason these denominations deny infant baptism: 1) they may not believe in original sin, 2) they may not believe children sin until after they have reached the "age of accountability. ?

Please post your views.--Drboisclair 17:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A surprising and odd collection of information

This article need a great deal of improvement to make it acceptable. I have been working on some articles related to Augustine (who was the foundational Christian thinker and teacher on the subject of original sin), and I just happend to wander into this article. I am relieved to see it has been removed from the "featured article" list. It needs expert attention to fix its many odd emphases. I am still reeling from reading the Unification Church's view on Original sin. While sort of fascinating to realise one exists, this must be one of the most marginal views on Original Sin conceivable - yet it reads in the body of the article as if it is important in the bigger scheme of understandng "Original Sin". Still in shock I then went on to reads ths Seventh Day Adventist view. How on EARTH did these two relatively minor groups (in the vast scheme of things) end up being subheadings of an article that FAILS TO COMPREHENSIVELY ANALYSE THE KEY TEACHER ON THE SUBJECT!!!!? I mean, whether you agree with Augustine or not, it needs to be here in a concise and clear way, or the rest of the article os seriously undermined. It lacks credibility. As I have time, I'll wade in here. Cor Unum 03:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original SIn (?)

Go with me on this one. As Aquinas espoused, reason allows one to differ between good and evil, it allows humans to distinguish the truth. Adam and Eve, by eating the fruit of knowledge, became aware of good and evil, and thus of the evil of their nakedness, so they covered themselves. It then follows that the fruit of knowledge gave Adam and Eve reason.

It is also true that reason seperates men (and women) from animals. Therefore, Adam and Eve could be considered animals before eating from the fruit of knowledge. This has two results. First, Eve's act of eating the fruit of knowledge would not be considered sinful any more than a dog eating a piece of meat left on the ground (Although her subsequent action of giving the fruit to Adam would be considered a sin). Second, by eating the fruit of knowledge, Eve (and then Adam) gained reason, and thus became human.

I guess my question is, is there a flawed train of thought there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AstoVidatu (talk • contribs).

Yes. But please let's not turn this into a general discussion forum. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my B. I wasn't really sure where to put it so yeah... --AstoVidatu 02:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

AV, you're totally right that it makes no sense to the modern way of thinking that the original sin would be one done before one was conscious of evil and therefore able to sin in the first place. But you can't just write that in the article because that's original research. Find some scholar or critic of Christianity who's made the point and refer to them. Jonathan Tweet 06:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Housekeeping

I think this article needs tidying up, because of the pictures, eh? OneWeirdDude 18:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Views on Original Sin

I don't think this recent edit is an improvement over the old text. While it does provide some citations, I'm not convinced that they're relevant to original sin, or even to the point that the editor is trying to make. E.g., the citation from the Talmud states that everything is in the hands of Heaven, yet he then goes on to argue that everything is in the hands of men (that is, that God does not influence anyone to do anything, good or evil). Maybe the Talmud supports this view, and maybe it doesn't; I don't know anything about it one way or the other. But the quotation offered here doesn't show that it does.

Furthermore, the transition to the discussion of concupiscence is jarring and unclear. He begins talking about selfishness and Christianity criticizing it, but it's not clear why he says anything about selfishness when before he was talking about free choice. Furthermore, this whole section is from a blatantly obvious point of view. If it is kept, it needs to be edited to reflect a neutral point of view.

Finally, the editor professed to attempting to formulate a "unaversal" Jewish outlook for this article. This neglects the differences in thinking on the subject between more liberal and more conservative branches of Judaism, which the old version at least attempted to address. I'd agree that some information about Orthodox Judaism would have been helpful even in the old version; but at least the old version acknowledged the distinction. This new edit doesn't seem to.

I would argue that this edit should be reversed, or at least heavily edited to reflect the information which the older version contained, to reflect the differences between branches of Judaism (or explain that on this question there are no differences, with citations to support that), and to reflect a neutral point of view. This current edit does contain some interesting Jewish perspectives on concupiscence, but it belongs in a separate paragraph, and should also reflect the differences between the branches of Judaism, or at least explain that on this question differences do not exist.

I didn't want to make these changes myself until I'd seen some opinions from others interested in this topic.

Dgoodmaniii 16:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd support the reversion for the reasons you give, but also because it is not clear how the section relates to the subject of the article. It appears to cover a different topic. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The basic notion of original sin is not as foreign to Judaism as is commonly supposed. (See, for example, this discussion: [7]) There is a long rabbinic tradition that people are born with a tendency to do wrong (albeit inculpably), that is only corrected by learning the Law. What Judaism lacks is a doctrine explicitly connecting our innate selfishness or brutishness with the sin of Adam. Still the gap between the Jewish and Christian concepts is not so radical, especially once it is appreciated that Christian "original sin" does not imply moral culpability, only moral imperfection or flaw (peccata). The Greek Orthodox and Jewish objections to this doctrine are based in large part (though not entirely) on the misunderstanding that culpable moral evil is thereby inherited.

I'm not sure how to go about expressing these points in the article, without conducting OR. Still, a good starting point would be to introduce some of the "original sin-like" Jewish teachings, while clarifying their distinctiveness from the Christian doctrine.Djcastel 16:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/r/i/Talk%7EOriginal_sin_0bb1.html"

Category: Wikipedia former featured articles