Original Sin

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1618 times

Original Sin

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.



"Original sin is the Christian doctrine that humans inherit a tainted nature and a proclivity to sin through the fact of birth. Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.

The doctrine of original sin began to emerge in the 3rd century but only became fully formed with the writings of Augustine of Hippo (354430), who was the first author to use the phrase "original sin" (Latin: peccatum originale). Augustine's conception of original sin was based on a mistranslated passage in Paul the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans, and scholars have debated whether the passage supports Augustine's view.

Augustine's formulation of original sin became popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated original sin with concupiscence (or "hurtful desire"), affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom to do good and proposed that original sin involved a loss of free will except to sin.


Roman Catholicism
Catholic veiw: "Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.
By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.
Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence")


Lutheranism
The Lutheran Churches teach that original sin "is a root and fountain-head of all actual sins.
Martin Luther (14831546) asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception.


Jehovah's Witnesses
The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race . This is elucidated by St Paul: Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin , and so death spread to all men because all men sinned (Rom.5:12).
This text, which formed the Churchs basis of her teaching on original sin , may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as because all men sinned but also in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned. Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what original sin means.
source


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
(Mormon)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) rejects the doctrine of original sin.

Methodism

Methodist theology teaches that a believer is made free from original sin when he/she is entirely sanctified.
(["entirely sanctified" or] Christian perfection is the name given to various teachings within Christianity that describe the process of achieving spiritual maturity or perfection. The ultimate goal of this process is union with God characterized by pure love of God and other people as well as personal holiness or sanctification.
source

Eastern Christianity
The Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholic Churches' version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil, "for the devil sins from the beginning (1 John iii. 8)".[74] The Eastern Church never subscribed to Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt. The Church does not interpret "original sin" as having anything to do with transmitted guilt but with transmitted mortality. Because Adam sinned, all humanity shares not in his guilt but in the same punishment .
source unless otherwise indicated


So, what do think of original sin; a third century Christian doctrine created to invest salvation with greater significance, a concept of questionable value, or concocted hogwash?


.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 4127
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 4446 times
Been thanked: 2640 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #61

Post by Difflugia »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:33 pm So are you suggesting that the word, like a proper noun, should be translated in the same way throughout scripture regardless of context?
Do you have a claim to make and support?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 23310
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 925 times
Been thanked: 1348 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #62

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Difflugia wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:06 pm"Clever" fits the broadest possible meaning of the Hebrew.
And why in your opinion would {quote} "broadest possible meaning" be the most appropriate?
For example in French, FEMME translates both as "woman" and "wife". Would you suggest that "woman" (undoubtedly the broader choice) is systematically the best regardless of context?

JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 23310
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 925 times
Been thanked: 1348 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #63

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Difflugia wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:06 pm "Cunning" fits the contextual meaning. ...
The idea of a "cunning trickster" fits the context.
Could you present your rationale for the above? What in the text leads you to conclude the above ?


JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 4127
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 4446 times
Been thanked: 2640 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #64

Post by Difflugia »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:43 pm And why in your opinion would {quote} "broadest possible meaning" be the most appropriate?
JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:49 pm Could you present your rationale for the above? What in the text leads you to conclude the above ?
Feel free to describe and explain any flaws that you might find in my reasoning.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 23310
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 925 times
Been thanked: 1348 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #65

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Difflugia wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:02 pm
JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:43 pm And why in your opinion would {quote} "broadest possible meaning" be the most appropriate?
JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:49 pm Could you present your rationale for the above? What in the text leads you to conclude the above ?
Feel free to describe and explain any flaws that you might find in my reasoning.
I don't know what your reasoning is yet which is why I am asking you the questions.


You say ""Cunning" fits the contextual meaning. ... The idea of a "cunning trickster" ... "fits the context." referring to the following verse but there is no rationale presented ie. what the verse in your opinion means and why (rationale) that choice would be more fitting. You proclaim another word choice would be broarder but the post is totally devoid of any reason why (rationale) broarder should be better. You criticise the NWT for a unique use of an adjective without presenting a single reason why (rationale) this should be problematic.

There is nothing to critique because declarations have been made but no case has been presented.




JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 4127
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 4446 times
Been thanked: 2640 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #66

Post by Difflugia »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:34 pm You say ""Cunning" fits the contextual meaning. ... The idea of a "cunning trickster" ... "fits the context." referring to the following verse but there is no rationale presented ie. what the verse in your opinion means and why (rationale) that choice would be more fitting. You proclaim another word choice would be broarder but the post is totally devoid of any reason why (rationale) broarder should be better. You criticise the NWT for a unique use of an adjective without presenting a single reason why (rationale) this should be problematic.
So, you think that "cunning" doesn't fit the context? Why not?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 23310
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 925 times
Been thanked: 1348 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #67

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Difflugia wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:13 pm

So, you think that "cunning" doesn't fit the context? Why not?
Nice attempted to switch; I am challenging you to present some kind of rationale for your statements; I may present my own point of view or I may be content to critique your rationale if you ever get round to actually presenting it.



JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4298
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 193 times
Been thanked: 494 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #68

Post by 2timothy316 »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:58 pm
Difflugia wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:13 pm

So, you think that "cunning" doesn't fit the context? Why not?
Nice attempted to switch; I am challenging you to present some kind of rationale for your statements; I may present my own point of view or I may be content to critique your rationale if you ever get round to actually presenting it.



JW
I'm trying to figure out what the focus on this word this has to do with the OP myself. It seems like an odd hill to charge upon.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 4127
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 4446 times
Been thanked: 2640 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #69

Post by Difflugia »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:58 pm Nice attempted to switch; I am challenging you to present some kind of rationale for your statements; I may present my own point of view or I may be content to critique your rationale if you ever get round to actually presenting it.
Do you have a supportable claim to make? I'd be happy to address it.
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:04 pm I'm trying to figure out what the focus on this word this has to do with the OP myself. It seems like an odd hill to charge upon.
Very little. I found the observation made by Miles to be interesting and thought it more so when I looked for a rationale behind the translation choice. The thread had sort of wound down into a tit-for-tat by that point anyway, so I didn't think I was derailing much by adding my own bit to what Miles wrote. It wasn't even a "hill" until JehovahsWitness apparently objected (it's unclear; they're "just asking questions") to the assertion that "cautious" is an inferior translation choice.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1466
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 179 times
Been thanked: 616 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #70

Post by Diagoras »

2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:00 am...so you think the number of deaths is what is important.
It is certainly one factor to consider when trying to understand war in a global context. I have never argued that it is the only consideration. My point is that the modern world is relatively more peaceful and safe when compared to earlier centuries - despite the fear-mongering we see in the media.

And since you seem to be using the example of war to bolster the claim of poor global leadership, I think its reasonable to add all the lives saved through medical breakthroughs and cooperation: smallpox, polio and now Covid-19 vaccines being good examples.

Laying the worlds current woes at the feet of Adam and Eve for their original sin just doesnt stack up when the world is demonstrably becoming less sinful.
Allow me to put into perspective for you, to understand what it is like for people that live in these areas.
Spare me the condescending sermon, thanks.
for you what is acceptable number or percentage to be shot, gassed <...> If your number is higher than zero, then just wow...
Why are you even asking this? To advance the argument that war has bad consequences? Thats not at issue. In simple terms, you are somehow connecting the troubles of the world with original sin and Im just pointing out that youre looking at the world through a rather narrow lens. Theres good from mans leadership there, and its been trending better for at least fifty years.
Then this world with mankind's domination of it is certainly for you...and you can keep it.
Well, I dont see another choice - theres just the one world, Im happy that Im in it, and plan to remain so for a while. Hopefully your experience is similar.
Another stawman (sp). I'm not talking about life expectancy. I'm talking about the governments that based on their decision to war or their mismanagement of resources lead to famine and the deaths of millions.
Yeah, and whats the global trend for availability of food? I refer you back to that website.
Ever hear of the Soviet famine of 1932?
More condescension. Has famine increased or decreased for people in Russia in the last ninety years? North Korea looks to be one example of a country which is likely to suffer famine in the present day, but its led by a man whos worshipped as a living god by the people of that country.
Because we think we know what is 'good and bad'. We think that WE know what is best for everyone.
Every human society shares that view. Passing the responsibility for those decisions to ones favoured deity has historically been ... problematic. More modern, secular societies like the Scandinavian countries have comparatively fewer problems.
Another strawman. I'm not talking about the end of the world. I'm talking about the original sin.
Yes, Ive taken pains to point out why your impassioned post about looking around and seeing all the terrible things happening in the world is not a particularly strong support for that argument.
The rebellion of A&E from God, in that they wanted to make their own choices as to what is good and bad. They didn't want anyone else making that choice for them. Mankind as (sic) shown over and over that in their domination over themselves has led to catastrophic harm in many cases.
But also many more benefits. The world in the twenty-first century, when compared to, say, the twelfth century is better, for more people. Thats not to say were living in paradise. Were not. But ignoring those of mankinds choices that have led to the standard of living rising almost universally across the world is putting up a straw man.
From what I can tell, many are accepting of these choices and the consequences coming from these choices. Many seem to be people after Adam's own heart. 'So what if a few million die so that we can keep making our own laws. No big deal!"
"Many people are saying..." - where have I heard that phrase before...?

Im curious to know what evidence you can provide for knowing Adams own heart as it relates to genocide.

While youre at it, you might consider answering the other questions I asked in post (I think) 48, and explain why you chose the one bible version with curious instead of cunning for the snake. I was under the impression that supporting claims with scripture passages was an important part of this sub-forum.

Post Reply