what is original sin? some questions to the chrisitians and all are welcome to answer

Manaal

I invite other Christians to correct me, but my understanding of original sin, is as I tried to explain in my earlier post:

Original sin means that we are born incapable of obeying God's laws. We have inherited weaknesses, which lead to sin sooner or later in life.
It does not mean that babies are born as sinners in the sense of babies are 'bad', and if small child pulls the cat's tail it is 'sinful' (how can a person sin unless they have the cognitive ability to know right from wrong?), or that we have to pay for Adam and Eve's original sin, in the sense that 'we committed it'

As akr4am quoted:

"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him." (Ezekiel 18:19-21)

"Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16)

These quotes relate to practices of vengeance, and state that no person should be punished for the crime of another.

There is a view, however, that when we realise the nature of sin, and don't turn away from it, then by condoning it in our hearts we make it our own.(Those are my own words. Here is a better, or perhaps more complicated explanation)

We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature. There is a time in the life of each one of us when we become aware of our own tendency toward sin. At that point we may abhor the sinful nature that has been there all the time...and repent of it. At the very least there would be a rejection of our sinful makeup. [I]But if we acquiesce in that sinful nature, we are in effect saying that it is good.[/I] In placing our tacit approval upon the corruption, we are also approving or concurring in the action in the Garden of Eden so long ago. We become guilty of that sin without having to commit a sin of our own. ( Millard Erickson, author of Christian Theology)

I am trying to think this through ...
1. Imagine your friend has committed a crime. Until you learn about his crime, you are free from any wrong-doing. But if you find out about it and don't take the right action (i.e. get him to confess or report him to the police), do you become partly responsible?

2. Another one.
I am German. My nation has committed horrendous atrocities in the fairly recent past. I was born some 20 years after the war had ended - so I was not directly involved in any of those atrocities!
It could end there ... but it is not as simple as that.
Firstly, the fact that I am German, my very accent when I open my mouth to speak, makes people remember those atrocities. In generations to come this will lessen, but with the memories still being fresh it is a fact. Whether I like it or not, whether it is right or not, I carry a certain amount of 'generational responsibility' ...

Secondly, if I didn't condemn the atrocities of WWII, if I publicly declared that Hitler was right (which, of course, I don't!!), would I not share in the wrong-doing?

These two last points are dscussion points rather than statements. I can understand people disagreeing with the concept of inherited sin.

I'm rambling ...

Peace

I'm not so familiar with christianity as I am with the catholic church since I was raised in Belgium which is mostly catholic. So I don't know about the interpretation you proposed Glo, but around here I was always thought in school that people are born with guilt. That we inherited the sin of Adam and Eve. It is said that Adam and eve were first immortal. But because they sinned they become mortal as did all the generations following them. So our mortality -according to the catholic teachings I recieved- is the punishment for Adam and eve's sins. Indirectly, our mortality also created woman's ability to bear children. It was seen as a modofication to cope with mortality so that people wouldn't get extinct. In Islam an equally weiging guilt is placed on both Adam and Eve for the sin, but in Catholic church they say that Eve -being tempted by the snake- in her turn tempted Adam. So therefor Eve, and all woman to come are punished more severly by the responsability and pain of childbearing and the monthly period they expieriance as a result of that ability. Christianity apearently re-interpretated those terms afterwards. But if I'm not mistaken, even in christianity a deceased baby that isn't baptised goes to purgatory. So there's "inherited sin" even there.

Hi Steve

format_quote Originally Posted by steve

I'm not so familiar with christianity as I am with the catholic church since I was raised in Belgium which is mostly catholic. So I don't know about the interpretation you proposed Glo, but around here I was always thought in school that people are born with guilt.

I am not too familiar with the Catholic view on this, so I can't really help you there.

That we inherited the sin of Adam and Eve. It is said that Adam and eve were first immortal. But because they sinned they become mortal as did all the generations following them. So our mortality -according to the catholic teachings I recieved- is the punishment for Adam and eve's sins.

I am not sure that I agree with the statement that 'our mortality is the [do you mean our?] punishment for Adam's and Eve's sin'. I would say that 'our mortality is the consequence of Adam's and Eve's punishment for their sin' ... if you see the difference.
(I hope that's not me nitpicking here )

In Islam an equally weighing guilt is placed on both Adam and Eve for the sin, but in Catholic church they say that Eve -being tempted by the snake- in her turn tempted Adam. So therefor Eve, and all woman to come are punished more severly by the responsability and pain of childbearing and the monthly period they expieriance as a result of that ability.

Yes, I believe that Eve's involvement in the original sin have been used by church teaching in the past to discriminate against women.
But other Bible passages do not support such a view:

If you read Genesis 3:16-19, you will see that God punishes Eve and Adam equally, and there is no emphasis on Eve having the greater share of guilt.
(To save space, I won't paste it here, but see Isa's previous post. He has quoted the passage there)

The New Testament makes it very clear that men and women are equal in God's eyes:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

Christianity apparently re-interpretated those terms afterwards.

If you study the history of Islam carefully, you may find that Islamic teaching has also undergone changes and re-interpretations over time. (Some may disagree with me here)

But if I'm not mistaken, even in christianity a deceased baby that isn't baptised goes to purgatory. So there's "inherited sin" even there.

Again, purgatory is part of the Catholic faith, and I don't know much about it.
Infant baptism is not a biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized.
A child is not accountable until it is old anough to make a personal and informed decision to follow Christ.

Well I like your interpretation, But I'm wondering to what extend that really is the classical christian teaching, or an attempt to cope with dificult questions. No offence.

So would it be safe to conlude that christianity does not have the concept of origenal sin, but that rather Christianity only acknowledges a sort of weakness in mankind? And if this weakness is by no fault of his own can it be considered as his "sin"?

B.t.w. I think you're closer to Islam then you realise yourself sister

format_quote Originally Posted by steve

Well I like your interpretation, But I'm wondering to what extend that really is the classical christian teaching, or an attempt to cope with dificult questions. No offence.

Well, I can only tell you what I know. To answer your question, we would have to do some more serious study into Christian doctrine and different denominations.
But I can assure you that my knowledge is from sound Christian doctrine and not just made up by myself.

So would it be safe to conlude that christianity does not have the concept of origenal sin, but that rather Christianity only acknowledges a sort of weakness in mankind? And if this weakness is by no fault of his own can it be considered as his "sin"?

I don't think that would be safe to conclude at all ... but I won't repeat all I have said already.

B.t.w. I think you're closer to Islam then you realise yourself sister

LOL
I'll take that as a compliment ... shall I?
I may be closer to Islam in the sense that I have a clearer picture of it's teachings - regardless of whether I agree with it or not.
I may even be closer in the sense that I can see real value in some aspects of Islam.
But I will never abandon Jesus Christ as my personal Saviour and the truth of his teachings, ... so really I am as far from Islam as I have ever been!

I wish you peace, Steve. Thanks for this friendly exchange of views. :thankyou:

format_quote Originally Posted by glo

But I will never abandon Jesus Christ as my personal Saviour and the truth of his teachings.:

Neither should you Glo

Most of us have a religion we follow, be it Islam/Sikh/Christain/Buddhism it matters not, as all these different paths lead to the one true door!

format_quote Originally Posted by glo

Well, I can only tell you what I know. To answer your question, we would have to do some more serious study into Christian doctrine and different denominations.
But I can assure you that my knowledge is from sound Christian doctrine and not just made up by myself.

Yes of course I didn't mean to imply you were making this up as you went along, but rather that autorithys in christianity have made it up as they went along.

I don't think that would be safe to conclude at all ... but I won't repeat all I have said already.

So in christianity there's also an inherited aspect of human charesteristics that is sinfull. A charesteristic beyond our will/control, yet where we can/should/might be held responsible for?

[Quote[I'll take that as a compliment ... shall I? [/quote]
Yes from my point of view that's defenitly meant as compliment.

I may be closer to Islam in the sense that I have a clearer picture of it's teachings - regardless of whether I agree with it or not.
I may even be closer in the sense that I can see real value in some aspects of Islam.
But I will never abandon Jesus Christ as my personal Saviour and the truth of his teachings, ... so really I am as far from Islam as I have ever been!

What I meant is that I believe your viewpoint lies closer to Islam than you'd think. Every pious person is victem of the clash of religions. In the end I hold more value over your personal idea then over the one spoon-fed on you by authority. That's why I said I thought you might eb closer to Islam then you yourself realise.

I wish you peace, Steve. Thanks for this friendly exchange of views. :thankyou:

Wa aleykum selam

format_quote Originally Posted by steve

Well I like your interpretation, But I'm wondering to what extend that really is the classical christian teaching, or an attempt to cope with dificult questions. No offence.

I thought this might be helpfull:

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man". By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence"."

Catechism of Catholic Church.

Steve - You must have had a really dreadful experience on religion lessons
n.

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man". By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

So we are not considered guilty for the act, but we do suffer the consequences. We are not punished, yet the punisment affects us.
(by the way, I'm not implying mortality or the abilty to bear children is actually a punishment. Personally I don't see it as such. I'm just building an argument based on the claim the Catholic teachings make.)

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence"."

Well this begs the question: Do all human sin fall under this? Or is just some of the sin considered inherited? And in the first case, how can we be held responsible for it? How can a deity punish in a justified way based on sins out of the control of the people?

Steve - You must have had a really dreadful experience on religion lessons

Actually back then -being an atheist- I had a lot of vain fun in those lessons mocking my teachers and raising questions they could not answer for my entertainment.

The dreadfullness was on my teachers I suppose

format_quote Originally Posted by steve

I'm not so familiar with christianity as I am with the catholic church

i'm curious - i keep seeing this type of thing. catholics are christians - why are they often spoken of as something different?

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs

i'm curious - i keep seeing this type of thing. catholics are christians - why are they often spoken of as something different?

Hi snakelegs

I'm sure you've asked this question before.
I tried to reply yesterday, but didn't get the chance.

Yes, Catholics are Christians.
They believe in the trinity and in Jesus Christ as the son of God who died for mankind.
The Roman Catholic church has developed from he first church which Paul started in Rome, and the Pope continues to be viewd by Catholics as God's representative on earth.

In the 16th century AD Martin Luther, a German monk and theologian, criticised the Catholic church for having developed traditions which were not founded on biblical scripture. This created a split in the church - Protestants and Catholics.

Some Protestants may have the view that Catholics are not Christians. Personally, I find that unfounded, because of the reasons I gave above. Yes, there are some marked differences between the two main groups, but the basic belief is the same.

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'Christian' ... perhaps I will have to do some more reading ... :thankyou:

Does this help?

Peace.

format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98

You said "christian" women.

Why did you say that?

Well, I'm a Christian, and a woman, and I experienced pain in childbirth ... so it must be true!

Peace.

format_quote Originally Posted by glo

Hi snakelegs

I'm sure you've asked this question before.

if so, it went down the memory hole.

I tried to reply yesterday, but didn't get the chance.

Yes, Catholics are Christians.
They believe in the trinity and in Jesus Christ as the son of God who died for mankind.
The Roman Catholic church has developed from he first church which Paul started in Rome, and the Pope continues to be viewd by Catholics as God's representative on earth.

In the 16th century AD Martin Luther, a German monk and theologian, criticised the Catholic church for having developed traditions which were not founded on biblical scripture. This created a split in the church - Protestants and Catholics.

Some Protestants may have the view that Catholics are not Christians. Personally, I find that unfounded, because of the reasons I gave above. Yes, there are some marked differences between the two main groups, but the basic belief is the same.

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'Christian' ... perhaps I will have to do some more reading ... :thankyou:

Does this help?

Peace.

yes, thanks for your reply.

format_quote Originally Posted by manaal

Am I correct in saying that Christianity is also now dispelling this belief?

Peace be upon you,

If by dispelling you mean trying to 'change' it or sweep it under the rag,

A while bck I heard of something like this among some catholic, of a meeting to discuss such things, but I have no proof, I had some but it was a while back and it wasnt something of much interest.

I see that denominational talk is happening in here.

I dont know, cant remember if it was you Manaal that was the original poster.

Are you asking 'what is original sin' in a certain denomination or are ya asking Biblically?

To me from my viewpoint Original sin is almost as obscure as the Trinity, you ask people and seem to get totally different answers.

As I have stated before, some merely think it is a disposition of man making him inclined towards sin, some think that we are all born in sin and need Jesus to save us, and so on.

all seem to be correct when you look at the bible, but all are illogical to think a Just G-d would do such a thing and some may just contradict each other.

I hope I have helped.