For Christians: What is Original Sin?

[DaveD49]

If you ask virtually any Christian "What was the Original Sin?" the reply almost universally would be "A&E's disobedience to God by eating the forbidden fruit. But was that a sin? For something to be a "sin" the element of knowledge that you are doing somethin wrong must be present. According to the story, the The tree they ate from was "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". If they did not possess the knowledge that disobedience of God was an evil before they ate from the tree then they committed no sin by doing so. They may have known it was wrong after the fact, but while doing so it was not a sin. What was actually their first sin? It seems likely that the first sin was their blaming someone else for their actions and not taking responsibility for their own actions. Adam blamed Eve; Eve blamed the snake.

But I think the story has a more important element that is often overlooked. It seems clear that the the story is describing man becoming fully human by gaining a conscience which is the knowledge of good and evil. It is what separates us from animal kingdom. Does a wolf commit evil be attacking and killing a human? No. It may have been a tragic event but a wolf has no conscience, and thus cannot commit evil. He is just being a wolf. Gaining a conscience, whether it be via an evolutionary step or an act of God IS the defining moment of man becoming higher than the animals. Animals live their lives by instinct. Humans on the other hand base ALL of our decisions by creating in us the choice of "Which way is better?" Even a decision to cross a street is based on the conscience. Would it be better to cross the street now in front of the approaching car or should I wait? ALL of our choices are based on the decisions between degrees of good and evil. It has what has led man from living in trees to living in caves, to huts, to houses, and to skyscrapers. On the other hand it is also what has led us to using rocks as weapons, to spears, to arrows, to guns and to thermonuclear weapons.

Oh, and by way, it also explains what has been an often used to attack the A&E story, and that is how Cain was able to find a wife among a "not quite human" people.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #1]

I am not convinced the story of Adam and Eve is true. If it was true, the original sin would be disobeying God by eating from the forbidden tree.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #1]

But was that a sin? For something to be a "sin" the element of knowledge that you are doing somethin wrong must be present.

Yes, it was a sin. They were rational beings and understood disobeying God was evil. They did not gain the knowledge of good and evil when they ate. Rather they thought it gave them the authority to determine what is good and evil, thus to become like God.

You can see this in - John Paul II writes in Dominum et Vivificantum:

Concerning the knowledge Adam did have, here is Summa Theologica https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1094.htm#article3

Wherefore the first man was endowed with such a knowledge of these supernatural truths as was necessary for the direction of human life in that state. But those things which cannot be known by merely human effort, and which are not necessary for the direction of human life, were not known by the first man; such as the thoughts of men, future contingent events, and some individual facts, as for instance the number of pebbles in a stream; and the like.

[DaveD49]

Aquinas, sorry, but I disagree. You said:

Yes, it was a sin. They were rational beings and understood disobeying God was evil. They did not gain the knowledge of good and evil when they ate. Rather they thought it gave them the authority to determine what is good and evil, thus to become like God.

Most people today realize that an actual Adam and Eve did not exist and that the story was meant to teach a lesson. But according to the story they most certainly did not have the knowledge of good and evil until AFTER they ate. It was only then that they had the realization that they were naked. In that sense they were in the same state as other animals which are also not aware of their own nakedness and live by instinct. The gift of the conscience was the game-changer, and only then could they be held accountable for their actions. Even the so-called "punishments" for their actions, pain, toil and death, were more realizations than punishments. Until that time, in an animal state that they lived as do all animal today do, they live by the status quo. They never considered their own mortality. Some humans do that even as children. They certainly experienced pain, but once in pain it became the new reality for them and soon relegated it to their "normal" condition and accept it without complaint Humans complain all the time about their aches and pains no matter how minor. A wolf never considers the amount of toil it takes to run down a deer. Humans are fully aware of how much work they have to do to feed their families.

So the first sin could not have been their disobedience of God. As I said, they may have realized it was wrong after the fact, but until they actually did it there was no sin. I remember as a kid being taught that Original Sin was a "black mark on the soul" and that babies were born in sin and in need of redemption. Today however it is taught that babies are born good, but they can be LED to evil. It is the second way that is the way of the individual conscience, and obviously is the more true.

Your quote from John Paul II in Dominum et Vivificantum I think more agrees with my position than yours. He said:

Wherefore the first man was endowed with such a knowledge of these supernatural truths as was necessary for the direction of human life in that state.

Please note the last three words of that sentence: "in that state". The state of man has changed quite a lot over our 200,000+ years of history. One of the biggest, if not the actual biggest, was when we were given a conscience.


I am surprised that you did not make any comments on what I considered the meat of my statement... that of how the conscience is responsible for all of man's development and achievement.

[JehovahsWitness]

It seems likely that the first sin was their blaming someone else for their actions and not taking responsibility for their own actions. Adam blamed Eve; Eve blamed the snake.

Their attempting to blame each other was indeed **A** sin, but logic dictates it was not the original or first sin.



To BLAME someone for something is, of itself, a recognistion that the prior action you are blaming them for, was BAD. So there was a prior bad action which Adam tried to off-load responsibility for onto Eve. Sin is anything that is not in harmony with God's perfect goodness, so the original bad action was the original sin, NOT the follow up blame game.

WAS EATING FROM THE FORBIDDEN TREE BAD EVEN BEFORE THEY DID IT?

Yes, it had to be because God does not withold anything good from his children. If God prohibited Adam Eve from eating from the tree it was because it would be bad to eat from the tree.

RELATED POSTS

Did Adam blame Eve for his sin?
viewtopic.php?p=1065330#p1065330

For more details please go to other posts related to...

ADAM , THE ORIGINAL SIN and ... THE DECEPTION OF EVE

[1213]

If you ask virtually any Christian "What was the Original Sin?" the reply almost universally would be "A&E's disobedience to God by eating the forbidden fruit. But was that a sin? For something to be a "sin" the element of knowledge that you are doing somethin wrong must be present. According to the story, the The tree they ate from was "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". If they did not possess the knowledge that disobedience of God was an evil before they ate from the tree then they committed no sin by doing so. ....

But they knew it was wrong, because God had said they should not do it.

However, perhaps correct definition for sin is: to reject God or to be without God?

[theophile]

If you ask virtually any Christian "What was the Original Sin?" the reply almost universally would be "A&E's disobedience to God by eating the forbidden fruit. But was that a sin? For something to be a "sin" the element of knowledge that you are doing somethin wrong must be present. According to the story, the The tree they ate from was "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". If they did not possess the knowledge that disobedience of God was an evil before they ate from the tree then they committed no sin by doing so. They may have known it was wrong after the fact, but while doing so it was not a sin. What was actually their first sin? It seems likely that the first sin was their blaming someone else for their actions and not taking responsibility for their own actions. Adam blamed Eve; Eve blamed the snake.

But I think the story has a more important element that is often overlooked. It seems clear that the the story is describing man becoming fully human by gaining a conscience which is the knowledge of good and evil. It is what separates us from animal kingdom. Does a wolf commit evil be attacking and killing a human? No. It may have been a tragic event but a wolf has no conscience, and thus cannot commit evil. He is just being a wolf. Gaining a conscience, whether it be via an evolutionary step or an act of God IS the defining moment of man becoming higher than the animals. Animals live their lives by instinct. Humans on the other hand base ALL of our decisions by creating in us the choice of "Which way is better?" Even a decision to cross a street is based on the conscience. Would it be better to cross the street now in front of the approaching car or should I wait? ALL of our choices are based on the decisions between degrees of good and evil. It has what has led man from living in trees to living in caves, to huts, to houses, and to skyscrapers. On the other hand it is also what has led us to using rocks as weapons, to spears, to arrows, to guns and to thermonuclear weapons.

Oh, and by way, it also explains what has been an often used to attack the A&E story, and that is how Cain was able to find a wife among a "not quite human" people.

I'll throw in another option. The original sin is not the act of disobedience (which sets up the original sin). Nor is it the blame game between A&E and the serpent (which naturally follows from the original sin). Rather, the original sin is when A&E run and hide from God when God comes calling.

Sin = turning away from God, and creating separation between us and God. It is putting our faith in something other than God, e.g., the rocks or bushes that A&E hide behind. We also see this original sin manifested in A&E's covering up of their nakedness. i.e., not just creating a separation from God, but from each other as well (hence the blame game that follows...).

You could arguably say that their disobedience was also an act of separation from God, and putting trust in the serpent over God. But I see that more as a mistake, and something to be ashamed of, which creates an occasion for sin, but is not itself sin, i.e., actual separation from God.

They could have equally stood naked, with their shame on full display, after their disobedience, and sin never would have occurred.

[JehovahsWitness]

I'll throw in another option. The original sin is not the act of disobedience (which sets up the original sin). Nor is it the blame game between A&E and the serpent (which naturally follows from the original sin). Rather, the original sin is when A&E run and hide from God when God comes calling.

But again, if they were hiding it was because they feared the repercussions of their previous action. Thus there was a previous action which was reprehensible, so if the question is what was the first "bad", reprehensible, ungodly (human) act then it had to be what they did to make them bolt in the first place.


Logic



JW

[theophile]

I'll throw in another option. The original sin is not the act of disobedience (which sets up the original sin). Nor is it the blame game between A&E and the serpent (which naturally follows from the original sin). Rather, the original sin is when A&E run and hide from God when God comes calling.

But again, if they were hiding it was because they feared the repercussions of their previous action. Thus there was a previous action which was reprehensible, so if the question is what was the first "bad", reprehensible, ungodly (human) act then it had to be what they did to make them bolt in the first place.


Logic

This is a tricky and interesting subject, so apologies if I go long. But to elaborate on what I said before, I don't think sin can be reduced to reprehensible action (or doing wrong). I think that sin is more precisely, or deeply, separation from God. (As a concept, sin is unique to the bible, and as such is meant to convey a specialized meaning vs. something generic like 'reprehensible action', or 'doing wrong', which all traditions speak of...)

Perhaps helpful to think of sin at different levels or types? i.e., There are lesser sins, or a class of sin dealing with transgressions (or the wrongs that we have done), which can indeed separate us from God (at the very least from God's will or guidance should we do otherwise, as is the case in Genesis 3), but there are also major sins, by which I mean deeper and more original sins, in the sense of the greater impact this class of sin has on the world... In this case, not just separating ourselves from God's will or guidance, but fully separating ourselves from God...

My contention is that the original sin of Genesis 3, and the true cause of all the mess that follows, is not the lesser sin that we see first, when A&E eat the fruit, but rather the subsequent deeper sin, the full separation from God, when A&E run and hide.

Reprehensible action, for which we should certainly be ashamed, is only an occasion for this deeper and more original sin.

***

Another way to look at all this is to recognize that the story turns on the pivotal verse 3:25 that A&E were 'naked and unashamed'. This sets up two possible transition states that are highly suggestive of what it means to sin, and to not sin, should A&E have taken the alternate path.

1. There is what actually happens in Genesis 3 (original sin).
A&E go from:
Unashamed -> Ashamed
Naked -> Hidden (/separated from God)
i.e., they are ashamed of their transgression AND they separate themselves from God and each other because of it.

2. There is the road not taken in Genesis 3 (and no original sin?).
A&E go from:
Unashamed -> Ashamed
Naked -> Naked (/communion with God)
i.e., they are ashamed of their transgression (same as before) AND they maintain their communion with God (they don't run and hide).

This raises the real possibility that the road not taken, if taken, may have prevented all the mess that follows. Or that it is A&E's running and hiding that is the deeper, more original sin.

[JehovahsWitness]

My contention is that the original sin of Genesis 3, ... is not the lesser sin that we see first, when A&E eat the fruit , ...

The OP is not asking for sin classification (scripture is clear on what sin is and is not) the question is what was the original (first) sin. You answer this despite what seems to me like your best efforts not to.