Talk:Original sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Original sin is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Image:WikiWorld_icon.JPG Original sin was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon:
(click image to the right for full size version.)

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

Archive
Archives
August-December, 2006


Contents

[edit] Anachronism

In reference to the sentence, "The Western tradition, both Catholic and Protestant, concerning original sin is largely based on writings by Augustine of Hippo, who concluded that unbaptized infants go to Dante's Inferno because of original sin," I don't think that this can possibly be true considering that Augustine lived in the 4th century AD and Dante in in the 13-14 centuries AD. Seeing as how Augustine lived 1,000 years before Dante, I don't believe he could have concluded that unbaptized infants are sent to Dante's Inferno. Then, of course, there's the little detail that Dante's Inferno is a literary text, and not a place (spiritual or otherwise). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.145.200 (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Quranic excerpt 7:20, "evil inclinations"?

I don't know about the English translations, but, what was mutually revealed to Adam and Eve on eating the fruit were their genitals and sexual feelings. They didn't feel "evil inclinations" and covered themselves, they were aroused and covered themselves! They were then sent down to Earth to reproduce and start the human-kind.

[edit] Opinion and Not NPOV?

I have some questions about the recent edition eliminating someone's reply to a some material regarding Jewish views of original sin. Well, just one, really. Unquestionably, the deleted material was unencyclopedic expression of opinion; but it was in reply to unencyclopedic expression of opinion.

Both passages, that deleted and that to which the deleted material replied, are uncited and apparently represent no more than the author's personal point of view. So why delete the one and not the other?

I suggest that the entire passage be either removed or rewritten to reflect NPOV and supporting citations:

"Judaism rejects the concept of the original sin altogether and stresses free will and men's responsibility of their actions rather than religious obedience or faith. Why, they ask, would God, who is, by dogma, universal unconditional Love, create sentient and sapient beings, then intentionally let them become corrupt—and then punish them from generation to generation with eternal torture for simply just being born in the world and for nothing else—and judge people not on their actions but by their faith or its lack—and then by whim save the beings from nothing else but from his very own wrath."

In addition to the "they" in "they ask" having an unclear antecedent (it probably should have remained "a Jew might ask"), this is unencyclopedic, unsupported by reputable sources, and an expression of an opinion. I suggest that it be deleted along with the deleted "sermon" which brought it to my attention.

Any thoughts?

Dgoodmaniii 20:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Original research

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.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 04:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Original signature removed ?


you are quite wrong. Original research is not frowned upon, its very explicitly forbidded. [WP:NOR] . If you know youve put any original research into this article at all, you must remove it. --83.131.159.31

Then take this as a lead, that someone else may refer to it....

The 'original sin' based on the story of the Garden of Eden, was the false belief that Truth would make us like God to know The Truth; problem is truth can lie.

[Self-promotional linkspam removed by Fyslee -- Fyslee/talk]

So this 'sin', is in fact a philosophical error of reasoning, that will eventually be understood. Currently, we are just able to understand the deceptive natures of half-truths, and one form of a half truth is a truth that lies; still deceptively not clearly entered in our dictionaries; as are the logical conclusions of this.

Take this as a lead...

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 04:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greek Christianity

In Greek Christianity, "original sin" is death, and it is the fear of death that leads to personal sins. I'm not EOC myself, but they are in the article and they should be in the lead, too. The lead should summarize the article. Jonathan Tweet 03:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lumpy first Paragraph

This is not an easy article to edit (given the huge amount of scholarship on the subject) but in my view- the editors who have gradually re-written the first paragraph of this article (since I last looked) have caused it to lose its NPOV. Trying to redact it- I can only come up with the impression that some re-writer intended to inject a stronger fundamentalist understanding of the Genesis narrative, and has caused the initial paragraph to be weakened by this over-concern. I am interested in other editors' comments on this. In my view, the first paragraph should be very clear and simple without trying to emphasise any particular POV on original sin at the expense of others (it is a disputed doctrine in its subtleties). These disputes can be outlined quickly in the intro paragraph- but should be developed in the body of the article. Any comments? 15:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I took out the reference to Adam and Eve. They are indeed central to the tradition of original sin, but this article is about original sin, not the history of original sin. It should lead with the current state of affairs (Adam and Eve not always taken literally) rather than with the traditional view.
The previous version treated the Western version of OS as the Christian version. That's a serious problem. Original sin is two things: depravity in the West and mortality in the East.
Significant disputes should be summarized in the lead, not just mentioned. A reader should be able to get a good idea of the whole article from the lead, and the lead should make the reader care by giving (a few)details. See WP:LEAD. Improving leads is a pastime of mine.
The material on Judaism should be cut way back in the lead. Judaism doesn't have much to do with original sin. Jonathan Tweet 00:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I wrote the following sentence and wouldn't be surprised if someone has an issue with it. "It is this innate sinfulness makes all people worthy of destruction." I'm trying to write this so that a reader really knows the import of this doctrine without making it sound all fire and brimstone. This doctrine is where we get the idea that everyone who dies unbaptized goes to Hell, even infants. This is where the idea comes from that our default destiny is Hell. I used the term "destruction" since ideas of Hell vary. Jonathan Tweet 13:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose this wording to replace the current lead:

<!--state what original sin means--> In Christianity, original sin is the fallen state of humanity, traditionally said to be inherited from Adam and Eve. Western and Eastern Christianity both teach this doctrine, though the details vary. In Western Christianity (including Roman Catholics and Protestants), original sin is the general condition of sin into which human beings are born. This innate sinfulness makes all people worthy of destruction, and only Christ can redeem them. Interpretations of original sin range from the doctrine that humans are unable to achieve salvation through their own virtue and efforts to the Calvinist concept of total depravity. Eastern Christians generally describe original sin not as inherent sinfulness but as physical and spiritual mortality<ref>[http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm], questions 166, 167, 168</ref>. The fear of death leads mortals to commit actual sins, making them worthy of destruction, but Christ redeems the faithful.

<!--summarize history--> While Christians cite references to original sin in the Old Testament, the doctrine is not found in Jewish theology. The Western tradition of original sin was largely formulated by [[Augustine of Hippo]], who famously concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell<ref>"''Inferno''", literally "underworld," later identified as limbo.</ref> because of original sin. Augustine in general and original sin in particular were popular among Protestant reformers. Like other traditional church doctrines, original sin has been denied or reinterpreted by various modern Christian denominations (such as the Unity Church) and theologians (such as Matthew Fox).

<!--AKA--> Original sin is also called hereditary sin, birth sin, or person sin. The term "'''the''' original sin" it refers to the first sin, committed when Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Christians usually refer to this first sin as "the Fall". By analogy the term "original sin" is used in fields other than religion to indicate a pervading inherent flaw.

Lima's version is tighter, which is nice, but it doesn't explain the consequence of original sin (you go to hell even if you're nice) or the split between East and West. It doesn't describe the doctrine's history. Jonathan Tweet 13:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The view that, simply because of the consequences of the Fall, "you go to hell, even if you're nice" must be that of a small minority, even among Protestants. And I don't think the introduction is the place to enlarge on the history. Lima 14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
What about the difference between Eastern and Western doctrine? You didn't address that missing information. Jonathan Tweet 15:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, let's talk. Jonathan Tweet 18:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, what difference is there other than in emphasis? (I presume you are not equating "Western doctrine" with that of some Protestant groups, but referring to the Church that represents the great majority of Western Christians.) Please help me by pointing out some affirmations in the three sources on Orthodox doctrine quoted in the article that are contradicted in the teaching of the Western Catholic Church. e.g. Catechism of the Catholic Church. The most likely source should be the one by Antony Hughes, but even there I have difficulty in finding one. (I have just had a problem connecting, and I go to bed soon, and so I will be able to read your reply only tomorrow.)
In fact, I now find that during my struggle to connect, you have added something here, leading to an edit conflict. By all means, let's talk. It's what I want. Lima 18:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I see now that you have reverted the article, still without documenting the affirmations that you have put back in. I would have thought an answer to my request would be in order. And that a little patience could have been shown with someone who was not continually at home between 14:40 and 18:16 and who by answering your first objection had shown that he was prepared to talk. Good night. Lima 18:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The proper way to deal with a lack of sources is to tag the unsourced and dubious statements, not to revert the work. If there's an issue with the lead as it is now, make your case. Don't delete it just because it's not how you'd do it or because it's unsourced. I put up with your deletion the first time, but not the second. Jonathan Tweet 05:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The view that, simply because of the consequences of the Fall, "you go to hell, even if you're nice" must be that of a small minority, even among Protestants. Here in the US, this view is common among evangelicals. Humans are said to be by default worthy only of Hell, and good people who aren't Christian are said to go to Hell. It's a minority view, but not a small minority. This idea goes straight back to Augustine, who said that original sin means unbaptized infants go to hell (the nicer part, but hell).
And I don't think the introduction is the place to enlarge on the history. What a strange idea, not to summarize the history in the lead! If you're trying to portray OS as divine truth, then of course one wouldn't want to play up the history. Showing the reader the history of the doctrine reveals its changing, contingent nature.
You seem to be asking what difference there is between Eastern and Western OS, as if they're basically the same. Eastern OS = mortality. Western = inborn guilt. It's true that you can carefully craft a sentence that covers both of them in one breath, as you did. But that doesn't make them the same. We should be trying to paint a clear picture of OS, not straining to manage a description that makes two different beliefs look harmonious.
My unfair guess is that you believe in some version of original sin, apparently Western. I say so because you act like someone trying to protect a pro-original-sin POV, downplaying differences among traditions and eras. Jonathan Tweet 05:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
For someone who complained that by 18:16 on the same day I had not responded to a remark he made at 15:10, JTweet has certainly taken his time to continue the talk he asked for. He asked me for some {{fact}} tags. To oblige him, I will put in a few.
I see that he has no objection to reversions done by himself without any such tagging.
If US Evangelicals hold a view (especially if the view is only "common" among them, not universal), it does not follow that the view is a general Christian view; it may well be a decidedly minority view even among Protestants, a term I here use to include Anglicans etc.
A history as complex as that of the doctrine of original/ancestral sin requires much more than inclusion in the introduction. The introduction should instead indicate what the article is about, without enlarging on any aspect of the subject matter. The Tweet introduction suffers by violating this principle.
Tweet says the Eastern view of ancestral/original sin is "mortality". Mortality not only of body but also of soul: "the soul loses the grace of God, which quickened it with the higher and spiritual life" (Catechism of Philaret, 166). Isn't that the same as what the Western Church teaches when it says that Adam "has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the 'death of the soul'" (CCC, 404)? Yet Tweet strains to have the article present Eastern belief as contradicting Western, without being able to quote a single example of such contradiction.
The Western teaching denies that original sin is a matter of personal guilt on the part of Adam's descendants (CCC, 405).
I think the doctrine of original sin should be presented as what that doctrine actually is, not as people like Tweet think it ought to be presented. It is not I who am pushing a POV. Lima 07:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Also make sure you spell out clearly that this is a "doctrine" according to the Roman Church, because it sure isn't a doctrine in the Bible or in my Church, and if you say they are "because Rome says so" those will be fighting words. 70.16.251.230 10:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course. Some (including, it seems, User 70...) say there is no ancestral/original sin. The doctrine of ancestral/original sin is not accepted by everyone. That is no reason for presenting it as anything other that what it is. Nor would it be legitimate to present as anything other than what it is a, for instance, Calvinist doctrine not accepted by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Agreed? Lima 11:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for information instead of reverting. Note that I've proposed a rewrite of the lead, above. For now, I'll get to work on finding sources. Jonathan Tweet 13:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a start. I'm sure anyone can use this page to find suitable citations. [1] I'll get around to it myself eventually. Jonathan Tweet 14:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Numberless are the writers who make false statements about the teaching of the Catholic Church similar to that in Tweet's citation: "Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin." As I pointed out above (at 07:49 today), the teaching of the Catholic Church is that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants." Lima 18:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, the guilt of OS is impersonal guilt, not personal guilt. Did I say the guilt entailed by OS was personal? It's not. Jonathan Tweet 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Whatever that means. If it has any meaning. I really do not think that, if Tweet were a judge, he would ask the accused to plead: Personally guilty, impersonally guilty, or not at all guilty! Lima 04:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"The Roman Catholic Church did not accept all of Augustine's ideas, which, however, were popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin." This sentence makes it seem as though reformers were more in line with Augustine than the RCC. It's a way of distancing the RCC from the now-dated and frankly monstrous Augustinian formulation while linking the reformers to it. Which Augustinian ideas of OS did the RCC not accept? Jonathan Tweet 13:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This sentence makes it seem as though reformers were more in line with Augustine than the RCC." Hmm one explanation for that is because they actually were. Or at least most sources I've read, including Protestant ones, say so. In fact some Protestants I've read use this to show that the Catholic Church went wayward. That it rejected earlier Christians like Augustine in favor of later innovators.--T. Anthony 07:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Folks who want to see for themselves what the RCC has said about original sin are encouraged to check out the online Catholic encyclopedia. Here we learn, for example, that those who have commited no personal sins but are stained by original sin (apparently not a personal sin, presumably an impersonal one?) are punished in the afterlife. "those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin, are confined and undergo some kind of punishment." [2]. I guess people can be impersonally guilty after all. Or, if "guilty" is the wrong word, impersonally deserving of eternal punishment (albeit of the lightest sort). Jonathan Tweet 14:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have looked the article up and found that the article mentions the idea of theologians (not of the Church) about "the limbo of infants (limbus parvulorum), where those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin, are confined and undergo some kind of punishment". Theologians put forward many hypotheses, but I am unaware that "the RCC has said about original sin" what this editor attributes to it. Lima 14:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deleted external link

The term "original sin" doesn't appear on the page at the end of this link:

So I deleted it. Jonathan Tweet 13:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lima deleted this external link [3]. Apparently Lima can't bear to let the Orthodox speak for themselves on this topic. Defenders of POV love to delete. Jonathan Tweet 13:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Lima is concerned that Orthodoxy may be allowed to be represented in its multiplicity not in what one congregation of one branch of Orthodoxy affirms. Although below I have indicated that I think that the article should go back to the way it was, I acknowledge that making the opening paragraphs more ecumenical is a desirable goal. What can we say in the opening paragraphs that could be said by all Christians who care to speak on the topic.--Drboisclair 13:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The trouble with Tweet's link is not what it says about Orthodox teaching - who better than a well-informed Orthodox to speak about that? - but with its false statement about a teaching other than the Orthodox teaching. It says: "Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin." This is an example of the unfortunate tendency of some Westerners as well as Easterners to define their belief not by what it is but by contrast with an imagined Catholic teaching that is nothing but a straw man of their own creation. Does Tweet suffer from this defect? Please God, no.
I agree fully with Drboisclair that the introduction should not go into questions of differences, real or imagined, in interpreting original sin and of whether original sin is only a theological construct without basis in reality, as some would say. There is plenty space elsewhere in the article for all that. Lima 14:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"What can we say in the opening paragraphs that could be said by all Christians who care to speak on the topic." That's a great question. The lead should say what Christians (nearly) universally believe about OS. And it should say how Christians differ and have differed. Here's an analogy for those who suppress information about variations in OS beliefs. If we're describing felines, we naturally want to describe both how they're all alike (carnivorous, etc.) and how they vary (tremendous variation in size, evolutionary history, etc.). It's the same here. We haven't summarized the topic if we haven't explained both the agreements and the disagreements. Jonathan Tweet 13:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Could not an article on felines leave discussion of the differences between felines until after the introduction? Lima 14:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helping to repair the problematic introductory paragraphs

I copy for the benefit of those who want to improve from the state that they are presently in the pre April 22, 2007 text:

According to Christian tradition, original sin is the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born (Psalm 51:5). Original sin is also called hereditary sin, birth sin, or person sin. Used with the definite article ("the original sin"), it refers to the first sin, committed when Adam and Eve succumbed to the serpent's temptation. This Biblical story of original sin is the sign and seed of future evil choices and effects for the whole human race. Christians usually refer to this first sin as "the Fall". Original sin is distinguished from actual sin as cause and effect: "a bad tree bears bad fruit" (Matthew 7:17, NIV). Original sin is not "personal" (in the modern sense of this word)—in that it is not the consequence of personal choice or personal failure to act—but nevertheless it is "personal" in the sense that every individual person is personally subject to the effects of original sin.
Jews do not believe in "original sin," but it is a key teaching for most Christians. In line with the Hebrew Tradition, contemporary Christian theologian Matthew Fox's doctrine of "original blessing" is sometimes used in contrast to original sin so as to recall, on the other hand, the many blessings of Creation with which God blesses the human race. For Christians, atonement for original sin (and actual sin) requires the redemption of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection. Subsequently, many Christians require baptism either to wash away this sin or to make a public and symbolic representation of one's redemption. Some churches, such as the Unity Church, regard the concept as blasphemy, as they believe the concept of a perfect creator consistently creating a flawed creation implies an imperfect God.
By analogy the term is used in fields other than religion to indicate a pervading inherent flaw.

As a point of information: the Eastern Orthodox Church believes with St. Athanasius (d. 373) that original sin is more than just mortality.--Drboisclair 03:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like great data. Could you get us a quote? An online reference? Jonathan Tweet 13:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Lima is trying to distance the RCC from its own actual teaching to protect its reputation. The following sentence was added not because it provides information about OS that's so vital it needs to be in the lead, but rather to protect the RCC from too-close connection with Augustine, whose views are suspect in the minds of modern people: "Though Augustine's teaching has been influential, the Roman Catholic Church did not accept all of his ideas (see Original sin in Roman Catholicism below)." Why is it so important to point out that the RCC doesn't accept all his ideas? Without this qualifier, is there an implication that they've accepted everything? The rejected idea cited in the article has to do with the origin of souls, a curious but tangential point. As on the Purgatory page, Lima is defending the RCC POV by trying to put distance between the RCC and what it taught for over a thousand years. Let's not let an editor's attempt to disavow the RCC's actual history keep us from working this article into something clear and informative. Jonathan Tweet 13:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I imagine, Jonathan, that you have had theological training. What Lima has said about St. Augustine is an established fact in terms of the RCC's position on Original Sin. The one who was totally in line with Augustine on this question was John Calvin, who is a thorough Augustinian except for some marginal issues like invocation of the saints. The RCC is semi-Pelagian; however, you have to take their position based on the prima facie evidence of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says. We cannot run in the opposite direction and "indict" the RCC with "false doctrine" here. They must define themselves. I respect Lima in that he knows what the RCC teaches and is simply trying to be clear on that. The RCC may be considered Thomist but certainly not Augustinian.--Drboisclair 15:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Lima is trying to distance the Roman Catholic Church from the notions that JTwt, on his own word alone, says are the Church's teaching, and so to show what is the Church's own actual teaching. The text read: "The Western tradition of original sin was largely formulated by Augustine of Hippo, who famously concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell because of original sin." Since the Catholic Church is the main representative of the "Western tradition of original sin", and since the Catholic Church does not teach that unbaptized infants go to hell because of original sin, a clarification (a distancing) was certainly called for.
The greatest contribution JTwt could make to "repair the problematic introductory paragraphs" would be to accept that the introduction is not the place for such divisive discussions. If the problematic affirmations were removed, there would be no need for the distancing corrections.
Thanks, Drboisclair. You got in just before me, giving rise to an edit conflict for me. Lima 16:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. You have to be as general as possible in these paragraphs. On Wikipedia there are no "right" and "wrong" answers sometimes, especially in theological issues. There are a multiplicity of POVs and nuances of POVs. What Lima has written that the RCC does not accept all of Augustine's doctrine on this question is absolutely true, and it has been true at least since the Council of Trent in the 16th Century.--Drboisclair 16:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I forgot about the Molinist controversy in the RCC, which might have a bearing on this.--Drboisclair 16:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Drboisclair knows much more about this controversy that I do, since I know no more that there was some such controversy. I think that, decades ago, I did know something about; but now I would have to look it up. Lima 16:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Molina, S.J. opposed extreme Augustinianism, and was more in line with RCC teaching. Extreme Augustinianism was represented by another theologian. It has only slight connection to Original Sin, though. BTW, I think that we should remove the sentence that is causing the problem. Augustine's position on unbaptized infants may not be primarily his. The RCC Church has recently clarified its position on the Limbus infantum that unbaptized infants may get to heaven from the "infant edge of hell"--Drboisclair 16:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Lima's phrasing, that the RCC didn't accept all of A's ideas, is vague and off-point. The purpose of that datum is not to inform the reader about OS but to protect the rep of the RCC from too-close association with that hard-core Augustine. Can we say something actually informative and specific about A's ideas not all being accepted? I did. The RCC has repeatedly moved away from A's hard-core formula. That tells the reader something about the history of the doctrine (which is the topic of the paragraph) rather than about the RCC (and how it's too nice to accept Augustine's mean ideas). Jonathan Tweet 13:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The RCC rejected some of Augustine's doctrine not because it was mean. The RCC rejected some of Augustine's teaching because they believed that it was contrary to Scripture and RCC tradition. The Eastern Orthodox are horrified by some of Augustine's teachings. They would consider them Manichaean. The Lutheran Church does not accept Augustine's teaching that God chooses people to be damned, which is a doctrine put forward by John Calvin and Theodore Beza.--Drboisclair 15:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I modified this sentence again to make it more informative, and to point out that A's formulation was accepted by the RCC (just not any more). This paragraph is the history paragraph. Please don't try to suppress the history of this teaching (e.g., that the RCC's teaching on this topic has changed). User:Jonathan Tweet 13:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Twt, who just now edited the article to say: "The Roman Catholic Church has never made a doctrinal statement one way or another on the fate of unbaptized babies", cannot declare, even on his own authority: "The RCC's teaching on this topic has changed." What is the Church's teaching now? What was the Church's teaching then? Catholic writers express their opinions now as then. It is false to call the opinion of any one or more of them the Church's teaching. Lima 04:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Lima, I see the problem now. You're saying that when medieval churchmen taught that pagan babies burn, that it wasn't church teaching. If church teaching isn't what the church teaches, then what is it? Are you saying that teaching is doctrine and everything that's not doctrine is just opinion? Thomas Aquinas, just so much idle speculation? I'm not talking about some lone theologian. I'm talking about hundreds of years of instruction and interpretation. The church used to teach that pagan babies burn. They didn't define that dogmatically, but they taught it. It was a teaching. I'm happy to live in a time when most Christians can't stomach such an idea. But church teaching has changed. You want to distance the RCC from its own teaching by naming all that authoritative work "opinion." I don't blame you. The RCC has taught some harsh stuff in its day. But this is WP, and defending the RCC from its own history is POV. Jonathan Tweet 05:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
"Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul" "Pope Innocent III's teaching is to the effect that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer "no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God" (Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii -- Majores). It should be noted, however, that this poena damni incurred for original sin implied, with Abelard and most of the early Scholastics, a certain degree of spiritual torment, and that St. Thomas was the first great teacher who broke away completely from the Augustinian tradition on this subject, and relying on the principle, derived through the Pseudo-Dionysius from the Greek Fathers, that human nature as such with all its powers and rights was unaffected by the Fall (quod naturalia manent integra), maintained, at least virtually, what the great majority of later Catholic theologians have expressly taught, that the limbus infantium is a place or state of perfect natural happiness." "we must not confound St. Augustine's private authority with the infallible authority of the Catholic Church" Catholic Encyclopedia articles on original sin and limbo.--T. Anthony 08:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Catholic theologians propose contradictory opinions about many things, and the Church allows them freedom to propose their theories. Ergo, in Twt logic, the Catholic Church teaches contradictory things at the same time. Lima 06:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The RCC teaches that any of several contradictory beliefs is possible. It teaches that pagan babies might burn, might go to baby lilmbo, and might go to heaven. It used to teach that pagan babies burn. Then it used to be pretty hot on the idea of baby limbo. Now it's cooling to the idea of baby limbo. In Gregory the Great's time, the church did not teach baby limbo as a possibility, nor did they teach pagan babies going to heaven as a possibility. Now both those options are said to be possible. That's a change in teaching (if not doctrine). Jonathan Tweet 13:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Just as I said. Lima 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag

This article is presently in such a state that we should solicit help for cleanup by more editors. I think that if the pre-April 22nd text is restored, that would be half the task. The changes have muddled these introductory paragraphs.--Drboisclair 03:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This too I agree with. It would be at least an excellent first step. If nothing better can be agreed on, it would be sufficient on its own. Lima 14:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
One point that I want to strongly maintain is that this article should avoid mischaracterizing other Christian traditions. We should allow Eastern Othodox believers the courtesy of defining themselves and their doctrine; we should allow Roman Catholics that courtesy as well. That is the way in ecumenical dialogue as in making this article NPOV in accordance with Wikipedia standards.--Drboisclair 14:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There is some agreement here

Jonathan has edited the opening paragraph in this way:

Eastern Christian Tradition identifies Original Sin as physical and spiritual mortality, which in turn leads people to commit actual sins.

This is not completely unlike Western Christian tradition. Original sin causes the individual to commit "actual sins." What I mean is that I as a Lutheran theologian do not disagree with this. However, I would say that physical mortality is a consequence of OS, not OS itself: "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6). I would, however, say that OS is spiritual death.--Drboisclair 14:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final sentence in the Roman Catholic section

Is this sentence (Those who deny the existence of original sin thus profess belief in the immaculate conception not only of Mary but of every human being) verifiable or is it simply a OR surmise of someone? I think that it should be removed if it does not have support.--Drboisclair 06:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's simple logic. Lima 07:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It's simple logic based on Christian (esp. Catholic) premises. Is there a notable Catholic writer who's made this assertion? If so, it simply needs a cite. If not, then the fair way to state this is: "Those who deny the existence of original sin thus profess belief not only that Mary was born without innate sinfulness but that everyone is." Jonathan Tweet 13:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
As long as you are satisfied with it. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, though, proceeds from the presupposition of the doctrine of original sin. It doesn't follow that if there were no original sin that all people then would be immaculately conceived. I think that there is faultiness in this deduction.--Drboisclair 14:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It's weird and stilted. It virtually answers the question "Who's immaculately conceived if the doctrine of immaculate conception is bogus?" It probably falls into the category of OR (we editors agreeing on what conclusions can be drawn from the data), but it seems pretty innocuous now that it's clearly from the RCC perspective. Jonathan Tweet 15:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You are right. There would be no need of a doctrine of the Immaculate Conception if there were no original sin as it is the doctrine of the freedom from the stain of something acknowledged in existence, known as original sin.--Drboisclair 16:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I have tweaked the sentence a little. I hope that you feel for the better.--Drboisclair 18:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Duh! Due to the Wikipedia policy of authoritative citation and the huge number of people holding diverse opinions, this topic presents only a relative small number of the traditional root beliefs. Like anyone today was there. Doesn't that make all the evidence hearsay by ordinary Wikipedia standards?
Plenty of original sin beliefs of smaller congregations and heretics are ignored in favor of the bigger flasher church bureaucracies vetted opinion, which doesn't even necessarily reflect the beliefs of the majority of their own congregations. Some of the ideas on the vast tree of opionions seem fairly nutty, but in total I suspect their members outnumber those following the so-called theological experts.
There are those who believe original sin came after the loss of innocence, when Adam and Eve stole the right of creating life from God by conceiving a child (knowledge via gullibility was only potential sin, putting it into practice was willful knowing disobediance, thus sin). They make note that there is no talk of birth and death in the garden of Eden and claim the ejection from the Garden of Eden was somewhat of a shotgun wedding.
I've met groups of people who believe the original sin part came because Adam and Eve were not just riblings but effectively siblings -- thus all mankind is born of incest. Immaculate conception therefore somehow being significant in breaking the chain of original sin incest as well.
One of the problems with Wikipedia is that its scientific citation policy assumes there is a single or at least limited number of truths on any given topic. Like most active religions, one of Wikipedia's unstated purposes is to reduce diversity of opinion by presenting a single reference (pro-humanitarian social engineering). Like most religions Wikipedia also tends to throw its influence behind opinions with either age or popularity or both, even where considerable dissenting opinion exists.65.26.137.248 08:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When does Original Sin end?

I noticed there is no discussion on when Original Sin ends. Don't most Christians believe it ends at the Second Coming of Jesus? Invasion10 08:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


It may end when humanity realizes that there is an unknown negative side to truth, (manipulated by some) to polarize issues or promote a hidden agenda...I call them 'anti-truths'...(yes I know this is my original research...someone else can post it however ?)

Truth does not make us like God to know The Truth, merely parts of it.

Our attempts to use it, truths, can cause problems...

EXAMPLE:

"Stop violence against women", a truth, a half-truth polarizes the issue, ignoring all other forms of abuse of a woman, and totally ignores men and children.

We were deceived by 'the devil' who informed ADAM AND EVE that they could become like God...

The research can be found at The Jesus Christ Code.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not God, we do not know the whole Truth, merely truths, we cannot judge people, as in a final judgement because of that.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As per my 'original research' to be found on "The Jesus Cbrist Code" online edition, the 'original sin' the false belief that knowledge is The Truth, that truth cannot lie, has remained with us.

This negative form of truth, what I have called the 'anti-truths' are not yet recongized world wide, but hopefully, with the help of hte internet and wikipedia, it will.

The important conclusion of this negative side to truth, is that while truths are true, we may never understand the whole truth as is necessary to judge people....

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article." Lima 15:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I think, though, that one can improve the article by discussing these aspects. As to the question as to when and if original sin ends: that may be something that is not answered in Scripture since there original sin isn't elaborated on so much. Sometimes there is no answer to be given like the one about "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"--which was never discussed by the medieval scholastic theologians anyway. Theologians past and present might have an opinion on when and if original sin ends. For those in heaven with the Lord, original sin has ended with physical death or with the "metamorphosis" that happens to the believers that are alive at the Second Coming.--Drboisclair 17:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If according to my original research, the 'original sin' was and is the inability to understand that truth can lie, the original sin, is still with us, and was touched upon by Alfred North Whitehead although the direct connection between truth and lie was never so revealed. Then again, perhaps the powers that be do not want to expose this ?

I contacted the media back in 1989, exposing this to some, and here we are some 18 years later and still no mention in the media.

ps...The time is near, a nationally syndicated naked archeolgist brought to our city the supposed bones of Jesus Christ...(yes I know JC is not to have left bones...)

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 04:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this the old "ignorance is bliss", I mean "blessed" argument? The one that says all knowledge except knowledge of God is evil? I sort of devalue this argument in that it starts Luddite and ends with the PETA concept of the ideal man -- in a state of grace but mentally and behaviorally no different from the animals in the fields (in the pastoral version of the common believer all the carnivores have gone vegetarian too).
But the the ROFLMAO part is where they go high tech on the Internet to spread that idea.65.26.137.248 09:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
--On the other hand maybe this touches on the simple "truth" that humanity cannot not hold or understand the whole truth of many issues compared to God. Even after man finally is raised to heaven, God will be too much larger and more complex for humankind to understand much of his plans and designs. That is God will tell us everything and it will leak out of our post-mortal heads like a thimble filled with water from a firehose for more than a year.
That branch of thinking says that if God has any expectations of humans, it probably is only that we do our best with what we do understand and not lie to ourselves about compromises and shortcomings less than what God might accomplish. Oh and that maybe humankind grows up and realizes that sometimes bad things will happen to the relatively blameless folk to further God's long term plans encompassing far more people -- suck it up and make the best of what you were dealt. I suspect God appreciates irony and strong sense of humor where you make fun of your apparent ill luck, except where you become too bitter and self-focused you can't response to different circumstances or treat others with compassion. 65.26.137.248 09:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesnt OS "end" for the individual with Baptism? I was raised pretty heavily as RC, and from what I gather the RCC's call is that baptism "washes off" original sin by confirming our acceptance of Jesus as saviour (saviour that is, from OS, which is what is barring us from "Eden/paradiseheaven"). Theres one answer anyhow. Im sure there'll be more. - Eric

I think this is were some of those opinions that original sin actually is the process of creating life without God (i.e. act of conception) which didn't apparently happen in the Garden of Eden according to some.
As far as "ending" I think you are asking more about the state of grace when all sins have been forgiven though not necessarily forgotten by God the Father. Baptism is of course one point of grace that almost all mainline Christianity guarantees each follower. But depending on the individual and branch of religion you believe, there are arguments that there might be other times of equal grace, e.g. saints, etc.
Of course one of the real differences between RC and Protestants tends to be the idea of regular confession and contrition, or specifically proper final rites, allowing most people to die free of sin and thus evade a final weighing type judgment. Protestants do not believe in priest as avatars of God and that only God will judge and forgive sin instead. Generally Protestants believe there is only one punishment from God after you die, hell, and one reward, heaven. Protestants generally don't believe in Purgatory or other lesser penalties -- especially working off sin by ritual acts or material donation in the mortal realm. Funny actually how each has their simplistic aspect and their complex aspect: Protestants think the penalty and reward phase is heaven or hell only - but boy can weighing your sins versus the positve aspects of your life seem complex; RC think the final assessment phase is simple, at least one unpardoned sin, thus fail judgment, or sin free - but then they get complex in all the ways you can prep for your final judgment all the way up to Pugatory (failed the preassessment). Hmmm maybe getting into a prestigious college is like getting into heaven.
But personally I think original sin has the tang of a common convenience to religious leaders. That is OS was created as an easy way to deal with heckers, malcontents and hardheaded folk in denial when they claimed they hadn't committed any sin. A large problem for those with large congregation or who travel or who know better than to let slip what a powerful personage wants to conceal. Personally I believe that a common original sin is unnecessary. With self-awareness comes ability to choose and thus to sin and those who deny the most minor infraction are just Bart Simpson talking (meaning "no one caught me doing it") or the "compared to the latest town gossip what I did effectively amounts to nothing". In fact I think minor sins are unavoidable given common situations like shortage where someone doesn't eat and and "I choose me to eat" or if we are all saints then the food goes to waste.

65.26.137.248 09:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original sin, racial sin and persecution

Is it just me or is there great similarity between the idea that humans inherit sin from Adam, and the idea that Jews inherit sin from the people who killed Jesus? Both focus on the idea of blaming people because of something their ancestors supposedly did. The latter idea led to centuries of Christian Apartheid and genocide against Jews. Evidently racial sin is a dangerous concept to use. 41.243.104.202 11:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The biblical doctrine of original sin has nothing to do with antisemitism or racism. Bible passages can be used to further these reprehensible vices. Just because some misuse the Bible and the Christian faith does not make the Bible or the Christian faith evil or reprehensible. St. Augustine wrote, "abusus tollit non negat essentiam" (abuse "affirms" and does not "negate" something like the holy sacraments or the Bible).--Drboisclair 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


If you accept my thesis that 'the original' sin is 'half-truth (2) I have discovered some 6, original research, then racism, is all about half-truths.

That is the hatred of people of different colors ignores the truth about hatred of people of the same color. Racism is a half-truth.

The Jews killed Christ. This is black and white logic, based on another half-truth, (original research. You see some Jews killed Christ, (together with the Roman powers (half-truth)) an d most importantly Christ was a Jew.

If someday you want to reference the work, it can be found on the internet, at www.thejesuschristcode.com or the book when and if it comes out.

Till then...

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What does thinking Jews inherit the sin of killing Jesus have to do with Christian Apartheid? For that matter, Jews have been killed for many reasons other than "killing" Jesus. At any rate, your whole Jaques Derrida-esque "half-truth" philospophy is subject to itself (ie. it cannot be fully true, one fact implies the other, absent fact, which we shoudl therfore percieve), as well as highly suspect. For example, claiming that not liking Jews because they killed Christ (allegedly, im not pointing fingers; just making points) is "wrong" because the Romans had a hand somehow makes the Jews non-responsible is silly. If one hated Romans for killing Christ and you applied the "half-truth" thing you still have say that Jews killed Jesus. Moreover, what does saying the statement is "half-true" even mean? Jews killed half of him and Romans the other? For that matter, the Jews ARE "Romans" because they are subjects of the Pax Romana (what? you think all the legionarres at the cruxifiction are Romans born and raised in Rome?), an observation analogous to your observation that Jesus was a Jew. Plus, you wouldnt be a hypocrite (just a jerk) if the death of Christ made you an anti-semite and not a anti-Roman, because Romans were not a single unit, as ive said. So, your half truth thing really doesnt pan out. Stop with the original research here (its sinful). Oh yes, yo udindt come up with this anyhow, you just greatly misunderstand it. -Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Forest (talk • contribs) 19:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

The article can't seem to decide if it's 'Original Sin' or 'original sin'. I don't know either way, so someone who does, please go through and decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.71.91 (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lust

In view of what seem to be an editor's negative reactions to any intervention by me, I hesitate to cross him in any way. So, rather than going into the matter myself, I present to him some doubts for him to consider.

He has made Wp state that "St. Anselm was the first medieval theologian to separate original sin from lust, defining it instead as a loss of righteousness". This, if I may be permitted to say so, sounds like saying that all previous writers (or at least those that could be considered medieval rather than classical or whatever more suitable term could be used) said original sin and lust were the same thing, that they defined it as lust. Did they? Did they not believe that even infants (who, I suppose, could not be said to have lust in the usual sense of the word) had original sin? And did Augustine really say that original sin was transmitted by lust? I thought he said it was transmitted not by lust itself, but by sexual generation, which involves lust.

I don't dare to say more about these latest edits, since I fear that even this point will be interpreted as personal opposition by me to the editor. I give assurance that this is not the case. Lima (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A. taught that OS is transmitted by concupiscence (lust). That's what my RS says. Do you have a RS that says different? I changed the Anselm stuff to match the source closer. It's not true that every medieval theologian before him equated OS with lust, but the disciples of A often did. Leadwind (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I leave you with your preferred interpretation that lust itself transmits original sin, rather than argue about whether the balance tips in favour of that interpretation of Augustine or of the interpretation that sees Augustine as saying in fact that it is sexual procreation (performed with lust) that transmits it. (There are those also who see concupiscentia in Augustine as having a broader meaning than the word "lust".)
I wonder would you like to rephrase "Still, the Franciscans maintained rigorous Augustinian views, while Duns Scotus and William of Ockham eliminated the element of lust." By "while", do you mean "though"? Both theologians mentioned were Franciscans. Even then, the two phrases seem contradictory, since the second phrase seems to say that the Franciscans did not in fact maintain rigorous Augustinian views. And would you like to explicate the puzzling "Pope Pius V went beyond Trent in condemning earlier theology on Original Sin"? What earlier theology? Surely not all of it. I wonder what earlier theology or part thereof he did condemn. The same with regard to the statement that "the Council of Trent opposed the Schoolmen". In what way? The Council, the article says, did not resolve "points disputed among Catholic theologians". Were the Schoolmen/Scholastics not Catholic theologians? Were Aquinas, Scotus and the others mentioned something other than Scholastics and Catholic theologians? Oh, and earlier in the paragraph, Irenaeus seems to be reckoned as not being an early Christian Apologist. I think most people would see him as one. But maybe all these matters are exactly what your reliable source says. In that case, we can leave them as they are, to puzzle others too. Lima (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Please see whether the text now addresses your concerns. My attempts to summarize ODCC are uneven, as ODCC is already pretty darn summarized. Leadwind (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for satisfying my curiosity. Now I know that the "earlier theology" that Pius V "condemned" was that of the Reformers, who identified original sin with lust, which puts a very different colour on the phrase "earlier theology", and that, instead of condemning, he "sanctioned" one earlier theological view and "allowed" another. I still wonder in what way the Council of Trent "opposed" the Schoolmen (all of them, without distinction?). And I wonder what, following on that mention of opposition to "the Schoolmen", is meant by saying that Pius V "went beyond Trent".
I myself would not have written, in the context of sexual procreation, "concupiscence (roughly, lust)". In that context, I would think that concupiscentia means precisely "lust". I have seen it argued that in broader contexts Augustine uses the word (which basically means "coveting", "longing for") to mean "tendency to evil" of which sexual lust would be only one form. Lima (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. Perhaps you could find a separate RS that would flesh out some of the information I've gleaned from ODCC. Leadwind (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It is you who who have attributed these curious statements to a book that I do not possess. Perhaps an exact quotation would show whether your attribution is correct (cf. WP:PROVEIT).
I am still puzzled about how it can be said that the Council of Trent opposed, for instance, Aquinas. He was one of the Schoolmen. If I remember correctly, his Summa Theologica was given high honour at that Council. So, if your reliable source does say what you attribute to it, I wonder how reliable it really is. Lima (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you have ceased to make corrections to this section, composed of statements that you attribute to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (titles of books are usually capitalized in English) and since your last remark might mean that you have no intention of making corrections, I have made bold, not to rewrite what you attribute to that book, but only to draw attention to some puzzles still remaining. Lima (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inherited conditon or human condition?

It seems more that original sin is something that simply comes with being human, rather than something that is inherited from parents (that it comes only from the male seems even less rational). Adam and Eve sinned for the purpose of knowing the difference between good and evil (even if it was a half-truth), and as humans we more or less do know the difference. This condition is paired and nearly inseperable from the condition of original sin. Christ and the apostles could separate the two, but even Christ was baptized for a reason. From my understanding, with no original sin there is no death or injury. Why then would angels be in charge of protecting Jesus "lest he dash his foot upon a stone" and why would throwing himself off a building be tempting God if he knew himself to be of a condition above injury?

To further refute particular doctrines of claiming original sin is passed from the male parent (to explain why Christ was not born with it) i've got one word. Cloning. Yeah, human cloning freaks me the hell out. But if someone were cloned from a female cell, and grown in the womb of a woman, there would be no biological male parent. According to said-doctrine-of-male-inheritance, this clonebaby would be born without the conditions of original sin. Of course, radicals might say that the kid might not be human, but then you're just being mean to a kid that might be otherwise completely normal.

Christ was perfect, sinless. But perhaps until Jesus was baptized, he was only destined to be Christ. 12.146.22.19 (talk) 03:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mormonism??? - and the Fall of Man

Should Mormonism be included here? Old-line Mormonism was explicit that they were and are not Christian: and they have never been consider such until recently, especially in attempting to gain the label "mainstream"; Mormonism isn't even a Christian sect...it repudiates every point found in every other sect and adds everything of its own so that theologically and in academia it isn't "Christian" in any sense. No offense to any Mormons out there.

tooMuchData

21:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What counts today is, I would say, what Mormons say today. On the other hand, far too much space is given to Mormonism here. The first two paragraphs are off-topic: they are about the Fall of Man, not about original sin. The same holds for several other sections.
Adam's sin is relevant to this article only in so far as it is seen as the cause of original sin. So only its relationship with original sin should be discussed here. Discussion of its nature (what it consisted of) is for the Fall of Man article. If nobody objects, I will remove all such discussion from this article. Lima (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] προπατορικὴ ἁμαρτία [1] or προπατορικὸ ἁμάρτημα,[2]

I apologize if I broke wiki etiquette when I removed the Greek in the article's first line. Still, it would be nice to see some reason shared for its inclusion.

It seems counter productive to introduce Greek terms, that are of questionable relevance. It seems especially troublesome for both instructor and instructed when many average non-Greek speaking English language Christians are conditioned to weigh Greek language and letters with unwarranted awe. And correcting mis-impressions in this context seem a bit more complex than merely announcing the term's irrelevance as to scriptural authority in the second sentence.

If, as I hope, there is no intention to spell out 'Original Sin' in the world's thousands of remaining official languages, as has been done with 'Greek', then it seems that an English friendly explanation might be in order for the Greek bias presented.

If Irenaeus used these Greek term(s), perhaps these works could be helpfully referenced up front. --72.160.76.11 (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)