Talk:Original sin/Archive 2

Cleanups

I removed the alien thing, because that was foolishness. I also removed the Islamic stuff, because Islam isn't Christianity, and it shouldn't be important. However, if anybody want's to readd it, here it is: Islam teaches that all humans are innocent by birth and they become sinful only when they consciously commit a sin. Islam regards the concept of “original sin” and the need for atonement by God Himself - via dying on the Cross - as a pure invention of those who came after Jesus Christ, declaring themselves as Christians. Another important point to bear in mind about the Islamic concept of sin is that one man’s sin cannot be transferred to another; nor can the reward due to a person be transferred either. Every individual is responsible only for his or her actions, for God is never unjust. This is made clear in the following in Surah 17, Al-Isra, Verse 15:

• {Who receiveth guidance, receiveth it for his own benefit: who goeth astray doth so to his own loss. No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another: nor would We punish until We had sent a messenger [to give warning].}*

A person is not held responsible until he or she reaches puberty. Then two angels are assigned to each person to record their good and bad deeds. Glorthac (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• You can't just remove a section of this article which has been there for months and had previously been considered important (please see historical edits) to place on this page and which is fully referenced. The comments on extraterrestrial life came straight out of the Vatican, there has been no retraction since and have very profound implications for the idea of Original Sin. Mentioning whether ETs would be affected by Original sin is no more foolish than the idea of Original Sin itself. Removing this section with ue cause suggests you acted from a non NPOV and so could be regarded as a kind of vandalism. I am also going to put the Islam section back in, as it has been considered important to mention Islam's position on the matter in the past. Please discuss major edits of this kind before editing in future.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

It should be phrased better. However, noting that the original sin is an original christian creation is noteworthy in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.15.189.11 (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

deleted external link

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

• Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Cosmic Fall; an overview of some views on original sin focusing on the early modern period.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)<--(that's where the tilde's go, but it always says "too much data" and gives the date: so I'm guessing the system will autosign for me after this arrow--)-->[though note this time except after this bracketed info, since for some reason it didn't sing last time, but here --]-->

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)

Yes, but Mormonism is almost entirely outside of Mainstream thought on any of this, and it has never been, until very recently, either by Christians or Mormons (read the old Mormon books by the leadership on that), considered "Christian", so I hope that we'll keep them distinct on this concept in terms of the religious nomenclature. But this section, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Original_sin#Inherited_conditon_or_human_condition.3F, from its outset is almost entirely Mormon doctrine: I know this first hand since I spent a summer letting Mormon Missionaries heavily indoctrinate me (not convert me, nor did I believe them) in order to learn about Mormonism from Mormons first-hand: then I went way beyond and studied their historical documents and beliefs firsthand, and then read into the scholarly corpus. : )

tooMuchData

23:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC) <--(that's where the tilde's go, but it always says "too much data" and gives the date: so I'm guessing the system will autosign for me after this arrow--)-->

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)

Including the Islamic Viewpoint

While the article seems to cover (not thoroughly though, but to a large extent) the concept of Original sin according to Christianity and Judaism, it only makes sense to have a section detailing what Islam (being the other faith attributed to Prophet Abraham (a.s.) and his generations) has to say about it. Without it, the article lacks completeness I feel, and am thus here to contribute what I can towards that goal InshaAllah. Please do feel free to pour in your suggestions as well.'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The concept of original sin is a Christian concept, isn't it? The article mentions Judaism, I think, only because some Christians claim that the concept is found in the Old Testament (Jewish scriptures), and so there is reason to say that Jews, who believe in the same scriptures, do not accept that the concept really is found in those scriptures. There seems to be no such reason for including views of Islam, Baha'i, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shinto, atheism, etc. who deny the existence of original sin. Am I wrong? Lima (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, while the term 'Original Sin' is not to be found anywhere in the Bible, the concept IS in fact solely based on what Paul says in 'Corinthians 1, 15:22', where he (Paul, not Jesus(a.s)) says, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” He then uses that as a building block to explain the theory in the the Fifth chapter of his letter to the Romans, and that is where Christianity derives it from. St. Augustine, alive 354-430 AD is the thinker credited with the Original Sin idea. Now, adherents of Judaism, the Jews believe in the Old Testament, which essentially comprises of Moses'(a.s) Pentateuch amongst other books, however they (the Jews) deny the concept of the original sin based on what 'their' own scriptures say; but it must be noted that they do NOT deny the story of Adam(a.s), and how he and his wife were tricked by the 'serpent' into eating of the tree and thus earning the subsequent wrath of Almighty God leading to their banishment from the Garden. Islam, the 2nd largest of the Abrahamic faiths is (out of all the others) the ONLY one which makes it an article of faith for its adherents to believe in Adam, Jesus, Moses, Cain, Able, Jonah, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Lot, and all other individual links in the large chain of messengers (peace be upon all of them) sent by God Almighty for guiding mankind unto the 'straight path'. We Muslims are thus commanded to believe in the story of Adam and his wife in the Garden, and its aftermath (with some differences of opinion course), in addition to the fact that there does exist some amount of truth in the existing Jewish and Christian scriptures, while other parts of it have been corrupted over time. It is this belief that gives rise to the dispute on the concept of Original Sin (which, I repeat is not mentioned by word in the Bible except as a conceptual reference by Paul). Islam is closer to the beliefs of Judaism and Christianity than ANY other major religion in the world. Thus, owing to the facts that a) Islam teaches about Adam and Eve, but denies the Original Sin concept completely, and b) Asks Muslims to believe that books were revealed to messengers like Moses(a.s) & Jesus(a.s) before the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammed(pbuh) however they were corrupted over time (giving rise to disputes like the one in question, I might add), would make it essential that whenever there be mention of a topic common to all three religions, all viewpoints be mentioned adequately and accurately. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Am I wrong in thinking that you are talking about the Fall of Man (the subject of a different article), rather than about Original Sin (the subject of this article)? Lima (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid yes, you are [[User:Lima|Lima}]. The 'Fall of Man', is an entirely subject altogether, albeit seemingly a bit intertwined with the current one but not as confusable with it. My direct reference is to the concept of 'Original Sin' from Paul's teachings of Christianity, one which the Qur'an has been quite blunt in refuting (just like the Old testament), and that's why Islam denies it too. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

For example the Qur'an says "That no burdened person (with sins) shall bear the burden (sins) of another. And that man can have nothing but what he does (of good and bad). And that his deeds will be seen, Then he will be recompensed with a full and the best recompense [fair]"^{[Quran 53:38]} and "No one laden with burdens can bear another’s burden. And We never punish (people) until We have sent (to them) a Messenger (to give warning)."^{[Quran 17:15]} Quoting verses like these, one certainly don't seem to be referring to the concept of the 'Fall of Man', does it? 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Is that essentially different from the position of the many other religions (examples of which I have given above) that likewise say nobody is laden with the sins of others? Lima (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. How, you'd ask? And the answer lies in the simple term 'Abrahamic Religion'. Apart from Bahai' (which in itself is but a 'concocted' version of Islam), which faith could you classify as an Abrahamic Religion? Also, which faith (leaving aside Judaism & Christianity which have already been covered in the article,) makes it a point to talk about the incident in the 'Garden' with Adam and Eve and the accursed serpent? 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

But isn't Original Sin a specifically Christian concept, not an Abrahamic-religion concept? Judaism is mentioned here, not as an Abrahamic religion, but as declaring baseless the claim of some Christians that Jewish scriptures support the concept. I am unaware that any Christians claim to find support for the concept in Islamic scriptures.

Or are we confusing the Christian concept of Original Sin with the Abrahamic-religion concept of the Fall of Man? The article on this other concept is the place for talking about the incident in the "Garden" with Adam and Eve and the accursed serpent. Lima (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

('Totally Accursed' I'd say the 'serpent' is). Coming back to your latest query, actually 'Original Sin' is more of a 'Paul'ine' concept rather than a Christian one (we do not find Jesus Christ (a.s) make even a passing reference to it in any of the Gospels), if you take the literal sense of both words. Besides, are you really unaware that some over-zealous Christians have in fact tried to inject the Original sin concept into Islam by misinterpreting some verses of the Qur'an (with rather feeble arguments I might add) (http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_original_sin.htm)? Now I know that the website I've linked is indeed known to be 'run by polemicists' (and tainted likewise are websites like http://www.Answering-Christianity.com, http://www.AnsweringChristianity.com, http://www.Answering-Christianity.org etc.) by most other editors here on WP, but then it does have a Christian backing now doesn't it? Assuming good faith I'm hoping you're not trying to turn this argument over by having me actually provide counter-links to my own points now (besides, Answering-Islam.org's arguments on the linked page are simply those arising out of blinded missionary zeal and essentially have only overlooked some of the basic principles of Islam -not to difficult to refute actually)? 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that you should therefore insert into the article the claim of those Christians who think that the Islamic scriptures support the Christian/Pauline concept of Original Sin, and add to it the Islamic rebuttal of their claim (without turning the article into an account of the Fall of Man instead). That, I thought, was how Judaism was presented in the article: a mention of a Christian claim that the doctrine was implied in the Jewish scriptures, which are Christian scriptures too, followed by Judaism's denial of the validity of the claim. But looking at the article as it now is, and not as I remember how it was in the past, I see that there is no account whatever of a Judaic view of Original Sin other than: "The doctrine is not found in other religions, such as Judaism, Hinduism and Islam." So all that is needed to put the mention of Islam exactly on a par with the mention of Judaism (the other non-Christian Abrahamic religion) is to add a footnote to a source that states that the doctrine is not found in Islam. Not an Original-Research argument by you, based perhaps on the text of the Quran, but a simple authoritative statement by a reliable source that says that Islam does not accept the concept of Original Sin. Lima (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion of having a footnote seems like a good start for now (although it took a lot of discussion for us to get to it). My points now are, a) if you've read my earlier contribution to the article (the one before we started this discussion), you might have observed that all of it was based/sourced from only the Glorious Qur'an (the most authoritative text on Islam) and contained no other original-research, and b) why are we trying to mimic how Judaism has been represented in the article, rather than try to set a baseline ourselves? In my opinion, it might very well be in the interest of WP to cover all aspects of the article from all possible angles. Your thoughts? 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Was the orginal sin sex?

I think I read some stuff about it being sex. its filled with thinly veiled references to sex (a "Serpent" gives Eve a "fruit" , and then Adam and Eve realised they were naked) not sure if it would be verifable though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.150.254 (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Christian View of Original Sin is Grosely Misrepresented

I would at least expect that those commenting about Orthodox views on OS would at least know what they are talking about. I am quite surprised that my addition of Proto-Patoric Sin was entirely deleted and the erroneous understanding of Orthodox Christian views on OS were restored. I am a Greek Orthodox Theologian and am not the least bit pleased as to the way that Orthodoxy is represented here. I stated that Proto-Patoric does not mean that sin is inherited, it cannot be passed on. The fathers have a scriptural understanding of OS (or in Greek PP Sin). PP sin is Adam and Eve's Sin not our Sin. Read the Scriptures, Christ came to give us Life, to forgive our personal sins, but not to get rid of "our" so called Original Sin. Death and the Fallen World is a consequence of Adam and Eve's Sin. We suffer the consequences of The Fall. Read up Genesis 3. Simple!!!???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.210.47 (talk • contribs)

"Proto-Patoric" doesn't seem to be English while "ancestral sin", as shown by the citation given, is used by Orthodox in English. What you say about original/ancestral sin being Adam and Eve's sin, not ours is already stated in the article and is a teaching shared by the Roman Catholic Church. Esoglou (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Thank you for the clarification, but I still see that quotations from some Orthodox authorities are in fact erroneous. Archbishop Sotirios of Alaska seems to be signifying that original sin IS in fact hereditary. This is not the Orthodox consensus. 218.215.210.47 (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Archbishop Sotirios's own explanation, which I have now added to the quotation, may be helpful. Esoglou (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox View Corrected

This is worthwhile reading. http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=3&SID=3

Take a look. In CHrist, Fr Kosma (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What a pity that it mistakenly claims: "Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin"! Some strains of Protestantism may teach this, but not the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches the exact opposite. Esoglou (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Though, as has been pointed-out by some Atheist sites, the 'no guilt implied' postulate on Original Sin still does not answer issues of God's own lack of ethics, in continuing to incarnate souls into defective human forms, knowing full-well that these human forms have been damaged by Adam's actions.

This is a paradox, since it implies an untrustworthy God. Do the Christians have an answer to this, I wonder? --Anteaus (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

History of the Doctrine: Satan

I don't think Satan is explicitly named. The culprit was a serpent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.25.89 (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Universal Infant Salvation argued by some

While Augustine argued for original sin and its application to infants, many modern theologians and pastors, including Calvinists, argue for the universal salvation of infants. As Calvinism would support, salvation is ultimately "not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy" (Romans 9:16). The Bible describes a work of the Holy Spirit (almost certainly regenerative) taking place in the infant lives of Jeremiah the prophet (Jeremiah 1:5) and John the Baptism (Luke 1:15). While the loss of any infant is certainly a sad event, the eternal state of the infant must be somewhat entrusted to a righteous and holy God who is able to sanctify or not to sanctify infants even in the womb. Calvinist arguments for universal infant salvation put Calvinists in conflict with their own doctrine of eternal security because universally saved infants could ultimately grow older and lose their salvation and fall away.

The doctrine of universal infant salvation even has the potential to influence arguments around abortion by implying that infants are universally, absolutely destined for eternal life in heaven while older children are not. Arguments affirming both universal infant salvation and abortion would implicitly acknowledge that an unborn life has an eternal soul and an eternal destiny. Jesus Christ: "Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment" (Matthew 5:21-22). 75.220.10.254 (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Original-research section

"If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is 'original research'". The section on "humans without original sin" is based on nothing more than an editor's suppositions about the existence today of people not descended from Adam and the relevance of this first supposition to original sin, and also on the editor's own interpretation of Genesis 4 and the supposed relevance of the fossil evidence of the existence of species of the genus homo other than homo sapiens sapiens. No reliable published source states what this section claims. Even if true, "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source". See WP:OR. Esoglou (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposing: article for serious editing

Hello my fellow wiki-editors. Looking over this article, I hate to say it... but there is a lot of content in violation of wp:weight, redundant content in several different places, and sourced content on the verge of wp:or, wp:fringe, wp:synth, or just plain boring for any audience trying to get through this lengthy article, that just has a lot of blah blah blah. I'd really like to call in PiCo (talk · contribs) on this article. You've impressed upon me in earlier conversations, about how you like to consider what the audience wants to see. If you are able and willing User:PiCo, I would really like to see your hacksaw. :> If you're not up for it, that's okay... as I'm going to be sitting down at the table with ‎Esoglou (talk · contribs) to get some feedback on what it was he wanted to see chopped up. (Gets out meat mincer.) You have the floor. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 08:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have earlier suggested to Jasonasosa a couple of minor (in my opinion) excisions of redundancy that have not yet been put into effect. I did not suggest increasing the redundancy. I await developments. I might perhaps later suggest other reductions. Esoglou (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, after looking through much of this article, content for Catholicism is wp:undue, basically dominating the page. History of the doctrine, Christian doctrine#Catholicism, Original or ancestral sin, and Rejection of personal guilt#Catholic church are all sections that are predominately based on the views of Catholicism. Interestingly, after reveiewing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the main content for the Catholicism view of Original sin isn't even included on the wikipage. Therefore, based on this source, I've developed a new introduction for the Catholicism section but I'm hesitant to post it yet, because it is in addition to the page, not a modification of the page and would cause the article to be extremely POV for Catholicism. So... we have to snip somewhere... What I've noticed is Christian doctrine#Catholicism and Rejection of personal guilt#Catholic church are redundant content and ought to be merged. So here is what I propose:

1. Merge Christian doctrine#Catholicism and Rejection of personal guilt#Catholic church together.
2. Merge Eastern Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy
3. Remove title Rejection of personal guilt altogether, and let the existing subsections fall under Christian doctrine
4. Will supply new introduction for Catholicism based on Catechism of the Catholic Church 397-401
5. Find ways to identify duplicate Catholicism material and make some reductions, possibly in history section for starters.

Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 07:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I presume you mean: Merge "Rejection of personal guilt#Christianity#Catholic Church" into "Christian doctrine#Catholicism", and "Rejection of personal guilt#Christianity#Eastern Orthodoxy" into "Eastern Christianity" (the particular into the general). I have already suggested that these two "merge from" sections are practically no more than duplications and could well be eliminated. The recently added heading "Rejection of personal guilt" itself (which is not the same as "rejection of original sin") is a repetition of what is said about the doctrines of individual churches (other than classic forms of Protestantism) and the idea could simply be mentioned in the lead. The Catholic doctrine, being as usual more nuanced and developed than some other beliefs, will for that reason require more space than those others, especially in view of the misrepresentations of it that are sometimes presented. Indeed, many define their own beliefs not so much in positive terms as being different from what they imagine the Catholic doctrine to be. Esoglou (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And do accept my apology if I repeated an idea about how to proceed with editing those sections, as I had to study the information to reach my own conclusion, which happens to be in agreement with what has been suggested by you or others. However, my approach is to "merge" rather than arbitrarily delete sections, just to ensure nothing important is missed. I am also aware that the Catholicism portions will continue to remain larger than the other views, due mostly in part to its doctrinal history.   — Jasonasosa 13:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Observations: "Catholicism" as generally understood does not include Eastern Orthodoxy; your change of the heading "Eastern Christianity" to "Eastern Orthodoxy" conflicts with the immediately following text, which speaks not of Eastern Orthodoxy alone but also of other elements of eastern Christianity: Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Catholicism and the Church of the East; sooner or later, probably sooner, some Anglicans will object to your classification of Anglicanism under Protestantism. Esoglou (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Again: Why is Cassian put under Eastern Orthodoxy? He wrote in Latin, was a formative influence on Western monasticism ... Esoglou (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This is where I need you User:Esoglou to help me. There is no "again", because this is the first time I've attempted to modify this article. The Anglicanism section is not my classification. If you look at the article's history, its been under there forever. Please don't pin on me content that is not mine or has been there before my edits. You've missed diagnosed my edits before, even on the Lucifer page like this. Given your observations, let me follow your lead. I shall restructure and await your positive critique. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 21:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"Again" referred to an additional comment by me, not to anything you had done. I apologize for using a phrase open to misinterpretation. Esoglou (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries.   — Jasonasosa 13:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Christianity/Orthodoxy

Many of the supporting references that are used in the Eastern section use Eastern Orthodox sources. Therefore, it is appropriate that this section be titled Eastern Orthodoxy. The section does not refer to the other traditions in Eastern Christianity.

• www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm
• www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/2004-hughes-sin.php stmaryorthodoxchurch.org
• www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/2004-hughes-sin.php
• www.gocanada.org/catechism/catorsin.htm
• www.oca.org
• http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/do-not-resent-do-not-react-keep-inner-stillness

Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 13:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Reformed view

The Reformed/Presbyterian view of original sin is significant enough to merit mention within the article. I'm referring of course to imputation of guilt through Adam's federal headship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.116.191 (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The Torah

In the Torah, there is no original sin on ADAM, and Adam didnot rebell but disobeyed the commandment NOT TO EAT FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND BAD. And the rebellion started in the Heaven Above, by the SIN of PRIDE ( that is the original sin ).

The " Adams action is of disobedience ,but no where it is stated that Adam's disobedience was a sin. Why would G-d create the tree and live an instruction not to eat the fruit of that tree of knowledge.

The Midrash says that the Adam was placed in the garden with one injunction . NOT TO EAT from that tree.

Adam was given a positive commandment to WORK THE GARDEN through the study of the Torah and performance of the positive commandments and to guard it refraining from forbidden activities , as such NOT TO EAT THE FRUITS OF THAT TREE.

The Fruits of the TREE of Knowledge were of the knowledge of good and evil. 

Both the extreme opposite mentioned in the allegorical manner.So to keep away from the illusions of the world and evil impulses.

To keep the goal of complete spirituality. When the Adam ate from that tree he opened his eyes to impulses of jealousy, envy,lust, honor ( honor also places the value that one is above the divinity of the Creator) , which opened the further door to the Sin of pride that originated in the heaven ( the original sins in heaven - by pride fell to the earth, coming in the form of the words of the SERPENT , one that ORIGINATED via the rebellion in heaven ( the fallen light mingled in darkness )

So the action of eating from the forbidden tree is not a sin ( as claimed ) but an act of disobedience. Adam merely brought in the EVILS into themselves (man kind) and made it part of nature. Anyway Adam didn't die, he lived 930 years. It is clear that he didnot die as soon as he ate the fruit. Rather he would become a subject of DEATH . Whereas if he had observed the commandment NOT TO EAT FROM THAT TREE, he would have kept his holiness alive forever.

Later, as the Torah enfolds, you would see, how, the FIRST CRIME happened on earth. The murder of Abel.

Dont get mixed up with the FIRST REBELLION. THE FIRST DISOBEDIENCE AND THE FRIST CRIME OF MURDER ON EARTH.

THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE THE TEN (10) LAWS AND THE 613 COMMANDMENTS ( THE COMMENTARY ) 1. ONE G-d none other.

2. KEEP THE SABBATH and the rest 3. 4. 5. 6.7. 8. 9, ...10 not to Covet.

You think !

After all, that serpent , originated from where ?

Was it a serpent or a snake ?( read the difference in description of the crawling things and the serpent with legs that stood there in Eden.

Who created the SERPENT.

Was it a snake or the serpent.

What is the difference between the snake and the serpent.

What was the significant s of the Tree of Knowledge and there is another tree - "the Tree of Life" .

You got to separate the darkness from the light.

Rebellion happened in heaven by the sin of pride.

Adam merely opened the doors to death within the nature.

Everything were adulterated by death.

Its a physical exertion of eating from the forbidden tree that open the doors to the fallen path of death.

That eating form the tree of knowledge brought in the EVIL too . You see the tree of knowledge is a source of good and evil.As such Adam open the doors to evil as warned by Hashem.

But Adam lived for 930 years and you may read the ensuing record of many other ADAM ( HUMANS) falling by the 7 forbidden sins. which are EVIL IMPULSES of jealousy, lust and honor which is aroused within the human mind that manifest as temptations when acted upon open the doors to many other sins. Murder was the first crime on earth , now that is a sin that derived from the ORIGINAL SIN IN HEAVEN , an impact of the fallen light of darkness. You see even in darkness there is holiness and also evil mingled. You got to separate the evil darkness from the Light.

Please do not hurt me , in any way for I post here on this topic of original sin in heaven, rebellion in heaven, the first crime on earth and the consequence of HOW DEATH assimilated into the NATURE of MAN and the CREATION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.116.251.234 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion board is not supposed to be for the discussion of the topic itself, but of the article and how it can be improved. What does that have to do with the section it is in, and with improving the article?Brianc26 (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

POV wordage "teach that" versus "believe that" or even "maintain/argue that"

Some of the sections use the term "teach" instead of believe, which sounds rather POV/firsthand perspective to me (e.g. "Jahova's witnesses teach that....". I have noticed many Christians using this term "teach that" with no direct object being taught, when discussing theological differences, even in thesis papers which are supposed to not be one-sided. It does not sound extremely POV to me, but it does seem to have the effect of making certain sections have a different implication than others. I propose that all instances of "teach" be replaced with "believe", or "maintain", because much of this article discusses some fundamental disagreements within different branches of Christianity.Brianc26 (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The use in Wikipedia of "teach that", rather than "believe that", has come about mainly because of the repeated objection from non-members of the denomination: "Many members of that denomination don't believe the official teaching." When indicating official teaching, "teach that" is not open to that objection. Esoglou (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

the original sin was to have children?

non credo sia importante fare una discussione a partire da me visto che il sito non è mio, però trattandosi di un enciclopedia bisogna prendere in considerazione la posizione di Schietti secondo cui il peccato originale è stato quello di avere figli http://domenico-schietti-2.blogspot.it/2013/11/il-peccato-originale-di-adamo-ed-eva-e.html

La traduzione impossibile dei reperti biblici su cui si è discusso per secoli (il frutto del peccato, la progenie costretta a strisciare, la tentazione, l'Eden selvaggio) era un velo che ci impediva di vedere nei nostri figli così bellini ed innocenti la causa di tanta sofferenza.

E' fin troppo chiaro, niente figli, niente problemi, niente guerre, niente inquinamento, niente violenza, niente ingiustizie, niente povertà, niente malattie, niente tradimenti, niente solitudine.

Come umanità, forse il modo per uscire da questa gabbia di matti, o prigione in cui siamo dannati dai tempi di Adamo ed Eva, o scuola di vita, o livello del Gioco con la G maiuscola, è non fare più figli e lasciare il pianeta in ordine alle altre creature, smettendo di riprodurci, compiendo buone azioni fino all'ultimo. Non una forma di autodistruzione o di eutanasia di gruppo, ma una scelta consapevole di massa identica a quella delle persone più sagge che storicamente l'hanno adottata a livello personale per accedere al Paradiso ed ad altri livelli del Gioco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.201.34.171 (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The doctrine is not found in other religions

Well, that's what they say. There might be some mentioning of what Christians would say? Chesterton said: There was one thing the ancient world was certain about and that was the Fall. Thus in my personal view which, to avoid the question, I cannot source otherwise, original sin is the very essence of the Hindu religion and called bad karma - going so far as that Hindus lose the notion of actual sins and thus of the concept of sin at all. Muslims write in the cited source: "Furthermore, Christian and Islamic concepts of sin are virtual opposites with respect to certain nuances. For example, there is no concept of “sinning in the mind” in Islam; to a Muslim, an evil thought becomes a good deed when a person refuses to act upon it. Overcoming and dismissing the evil thoughts which forever assail our minds is considered deserving of reward rather than punishment. Islamicly speaking, an evil thought only becomes sinful when acted upon." And thus they themselves admit that there are evil thoughts, and original sin is somewhat the doctrine of where they come from. (Except the notion that a bad thought is a, venial, sin in itself in general, they are besides basically right about them.) The Judaist source says that man is not inherently sinful, and we all agree with a voice of thunder. But if they say that he sins because he is not perfect, they should accept that Christians have decided to call this imperfection original sin. - I just can't understand why we must dispute not over the Christian Doctrine, but over what some seem to understand as the Christian Doctrine.77.4.89.113 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Chesterton was a journalist, and frequently wrong. PiCo (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The long paragraph above obeys no ordinary rules of the English language. It also follows no logical argument such as one characterized by a proposition, evidence to support the proposition, and a conclusion supported by the proposition and evidence. Please, either brush up on your English language skills for this English speaking website, or present a compelling even if awkwardly phrased argument. Your current contribution is worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.61.121.188 (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear @PiCo, supposing he were wrong, still the fact is that "the doctrine is not found in other religions" is plainly not an undisputed statement. On the other hand, "other religions generally reject the concept of original sin" might be, and "Christians nevertheless find traces of original sin in their concepts" might be too, provided it can be referenced. (I do not pretend my paragraph above to be such reference.) As a matter of fact, it was this proposition which I intended to support. On an unrelated note but from the same area, religion, I can very well imagine a modern Protestant to say that the doctrine of purgatory is a Catholic fabrication and nonsense and that, God being merciful, all men that go to Hell will sooner or later leave it and be accepted in Heaven. This Protestant says: "I reject Purgatory; I do not believe Hell will be eternal". It must be mentioned at some place - and not because of disagreement with his opinion but simply to render it more precise - that he got his terms wrong, and that what he means is simply that although saying the contraray, he rejects Hell and accepts Purgatory.--2.236.198.248 (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC) (the same, begging the dear IP 107.61.'s pardon. I do not, to tell the truth, perceive my English to be blatantly wrong. Please excuse the mistakes of an, obviously, non-English-speaker.)

What did Augustine of Hippo actually Say about Romans 5:12?

I've come here, as a last resort, trying to find a quotation of what Augustine actually said about Romans 5:12. (Never mind that a man who only knew Latin supposedly mistranslated the verse from Greek, as so many claim he did.) Is there some taboo that prohibits anyone actually quoting his commentary about the verse? 74.38.23.12 (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems he said several things at different times: read the chapter The Biblical Testimonia in Pier Franco Beatrice's The Transmission of Sin: Augustine and the Pre-Augustinian Sources. Esoglou (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge Ancestral Sin

The lead states that ancestral sin is an alternate name for this topic and even links to that article (an MOS violation). The reason for the two articles seems to be the subtle variations in the Western vs. Eastern viewpoints but these subtleties hardly justify two articles (and again, if one is going to argue that they are truly distinct then the lead sentence for this one cannot then treat both names as synonyms).

Unless somebody can offer a reason to believe that, when fully fleshed out, there would be enough usefully distinct content to have two articles I would say these need to be merged.

--MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.168.1 (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have just returned to Wikipedia after an absence of several weeks, and need some time to look into this, but I do need to point out that the east/west differences are not so subtle, nor are they "variations". I do not know offhand if two articles are required, or if both viewpoints can be treated well within a single article. But the matter is not one merely of "alternate names", so let's not be inappropriately casual about the depths of the differences. Evensteven (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

After looking at it a bit, it seems that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are somewhat closer to each other than to varieties of Protestantism, but that each has its own views and emphases, some more subtle, some (like total depravity) rather basic. I find that Orthodoxy is not mentioned in either the lead or the history of "Original Sin", a considerable omission given the common heritage it shares with Catholicism. While Augustine's views, and varied reactions to them, are presented, there is incomplete historical coverage that needs to be rectified, particularly with regard to the east. The whole Church, east and west, was working out doctrine (not only this one) at that time, and there were always contentions and reconciliations to be made in so doing. The history section needs to make clear that no single doctrine of original sin was ever truly unified at any point, and that many of the original disagreements persist in the varieties of interpretation found today. Surely the Orthodox doctrine forms a part of that. And surely the lead is incorrect in calling original sin "the Christian doctrine of ..."; perhaps "Christian name for ..."?

If some of the basic weakness remaining in the Original Sin article can be addressed, I see an opportunity to fold in the material from Ancestral Sin into just the one article (mostly into the existing Eastern Orthodoxy section) and make it all work in a balanced way. But I don't think the one article will be as balanced as the current two articles without some bolstering of the history and lead section also. If a merge is to be accomplished to WP's benefit, there is more to be done than the simple joining of current content. I'd be glad to participate, but those other editors who are strong on history, particularly over the time frame of 450-1500, will undoubtedly need to supplement and check what I can do. Evensteven (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

My preference is to leave them separate. The Eastern Orthodox Church does not use or agree with the term Original Sin and consider the differences in views a fundamental difference between East and West. Basileias (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I tend to agree that they should remain separate. It might be more complete to say that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not agree to incorporate use of the term "original sin" (formally) because of the more serious differences in teaching that its use implies in the west. Of course, casual use may be encountered, but "ancestral sin" is the commonest substitution offered, as tending better to avoid confusions. This would make a perfect case for two articles: separate viewpoints sometimes require separate terminology. If the current articles seem too subtle or vague in their distinctions, the solution is to clarify them in each, by means of contrast if necessary. But I do think that course needs to be tempered, so that the articles do not themselves become argumentative or inflammatory. That would be a quality reversal. Evensteven (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I like how you worded that, and very much agreed. Basileias (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No, don't merge. The concepts are similar but different. Like Basileias wrote, "Eastern Orthodox Church does not use or agree with the term Original Sin". A merge will lead to conflation of the terms and a useless, uninformative, squabbled over article. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"original sin" is an extension of the (pre-existing, not specifically Christian) concept of ancestral sin in Christian theology specifically. The two are closely related, and the "development" section needs to pay close attention to the topic, but they are not, of course, identical, and the articles should not be merged as there is plenty of potential for the development of the more inclusive topic of ancestral sin. --dab (𒁳) 11:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

pride

Is there a reason why it is nowhere said in the article that pride (see Aquinas for instance) has been considered as the said original sin? Such a long article with little reference to the nature of the said sin itself. Only a mere mention in the footnotes, weird. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, as a first point, Aquinas is not accepted as a theologian in the east - not Orthodox. But yes, the first sin has been characterized as pride, which is at least a part of it in Orthodox theology. It has also been characterized as disobedience, (to God), always a sign of pride. In fact, there is a whole range of associated aspects that cannot be separated from the act, among them ambition, arrogance, and presumption (man putting himself forward as the equal to or superior to God). I find that the west generally does not like looking at stuff like that, so perhaps it's not so surprising that it's glossed over in the article. Does western scholasticism even talk about that much these days? Aquinas is far superior to most of what we see today. Evensteven (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

They don't seem to talk about it directly (as much as they did) in modern texts, but this is included in texts concerning the said seven deadly sins. For now I have no proposition on how, where and how add this. I'll be taking a brake from wikipedia and discuss it further upon my return. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness section doesn't answer the question

It looks like the Jehovah's Witness section was written by a Jehovah's Witness who was being a bit too careful with their words. Understandable, but it resulted in a section that doesn't really even talk about Original Sin. Specifically, it gives no indication as to whether Jehovah's Witnesses are Pelagian or not, which is kinda' the crux of the whole "denominational views" section. Do they believe in original guilt? --Mrcolj (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Original sin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020030856/http://nazarene.org/ministries/administration/visitorcenter/articles/ to http://nazarene.org/ministries/administration/visitorcenter/articles/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721082731/http://www.parembasis.gr/2003/03_10_16.htm to http://www.parembasis.gr/2003/03_10_16.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/2004-hughes-sin.php
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120710233342/http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1649 to http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1649
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amazingfacts.org/FreeStuff/OnlineLibrary/tabid/106/ctl/ViewMedia/mid/447/IID/87/LNG/en/SC/R/Default.aspx?7=Christ%27s-Human-Nature

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Original sin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313142441/http://www.nyym.org/?q=faith_and_practice to http://www.nyym.org/?q=faith_and_practice

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarity

Can this article be more clear about whether Original sin begins at birth or conception?Manabimasu (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Manabimasu: at conception. Augustin identified the means by which original sin is transmitted from one generation to the next, namely through male semen, so that sin is transmitted at the moment semen enters the womb (he didn't know about the female role in reproduction, but thought that male semen contained the complete new child, to which God provided the soul). In this way original sin has been transmitted from Adam through all generations to the present day. Of course there was no Adam, but that's not really relevant.Achar Sva (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Definition

The text that says "For protestants" it is not general, Pentecostals do not have the same idea about original sin as Adventists, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. You have to specify which Protestants believe that original sin is an act. Not all Protestants have the same idea about original sin, that is why the word "Some protestants" is used.Rafaelosornio (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you specify which point in the article you're talking about?Achar Sva (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

(Later). I think I see what you mean: on page 6 the author says he's going to address Lutheran theology and ethics in a post-Christian society. Yes, but there's no indication on page 7 that he means anything other than all biblical scholars, not Lutheran ones, when he says that "Old Testament scholars unite in describing the Eden narrative as a myth that does not give a historical account of something that really happened." Indeed, it would be extremely difficult to find a scholar today who thinks that the world is just six thousand years old, that humanity is descended from just two people, and that the talking snake was real. I could find you an almost unlimited number of scholars saying it's not history, but perhaps the most readable is Walton's "Lost World".Achar Sva (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

On the other part of your edit, we should avoid the online Britannica as it's open source just like Wikipedia - the modern Britannica is a pale shadow its former self. In general, for biblical articles we should use books or journal articles. I'm not happy with the definition and will keep searching. I think we need to differentiate the sin described in Genesis 3, and the later doctrine, and we need to boil that doctrine down to the lowest common denominator. Any good books you can find will be most welcome.Achar Sva (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

We have to follow sources, we have no choice on that. This particular source says Catholics/Protestants, we can't change it without an alternative source.Achar Sva (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

reversion

Elizium23 (talk · contribs) Can you explain why you reverted my edit? All those sources are unreliable. They don't belong on the page.Editshmedt (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Editshmedt, the sources you derided as "pastor websites" are The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and a scholarly book by Kenneth Wilson. These sources are all widely regarded as reliable here on Wikipedia, they are not "pastor websites", and you have no basis to remove them nor the information they support. Elizium23 (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23 (talk · contribs) You've made some mistakes there. The first source given was:

https://www.vision.org/the-original-view-of-original-sin-1140

According to this website's about page, they are "sponsored and funded by the Church of God, an International Community". They appear as something like a magazine for this church. So my characterization there is right - this is not a reliable, scholarly source. The second source is:

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num54.htm

This is an obviously ... blatantly unreliable website. It's a bad enough website that my connection is listed as not secure to it. The front page of the website calls itself an "Apologetics Site" and has a big TRUMP PENCE 2020 logo. This is an obviously personal website self-described as for apologetics purposes. The third source is:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131020030856/http://nazarene.org/ministries/administration/visitorcenter/articles/

This is an archived webpage (i.e. no longer up) from the nazrene.org website, which is the official website of the Church of the Nazarene. So this is, yet again, a pastor website. The fourth source is:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131021173528/http://www.topicalbiblestudies.com/original-sin.php

This source, also archived (and therefore no longer up) is from a website called TopicalBibleStudies. Their about page on their official website makes it clear who operates the websites and writes their articles, and they are definitely not scholars. The fifth source is:

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/salvation/original-sin

This is from the Catholic News Agency. A Catholic news website isn't a scholarly source on the historical origins of the doctrine of original sin. Are you sure you correctly saw what I removed?Editshmedt (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, please double check the edit. Editshmedt's edit left the reliable sources alone and removed church websites. The portion he removed was:

seeing it as based on the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle (Romans 5:12–21 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22) and the Old Testament verse of Psalms 51:5.

While it could be nice to restore that material with reliable sources, removing it due to unreliable sourcing is preferable at the moment. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I totally misread that diff backwards; sometimes I hate diffs! I apologize because you were totally in the right. Sorry. Elizium23 (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Elizium23 (talk · contribs) Because it is the case that you misread my edit, I kindly ask you to go back to my talk page and retract the warning you added to my talk page. I do not want other editors looking at my talk page and getting the impression that I don't know how to edit.Editshmedt (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

According to his own understanding of the user "Achar Sva" the original sin is not a sin.

The book source says the following:

"The transgression of Adam and Eve is easily the most well known sin in the Bible and it is not named as a sin in Genesis." but user Achar Sva is bent on removing that source and putting his own understanding without following the source.

The user wants to place the sentence incompletely. The source says "the transgression of Adam and Eve is easily the most well known sin in the Bible and it is not named as a sin in Genesis." but he wants to put the following: "the story does not name their transgression as a sin."

Besides that it is preceded by irrelevant information that although the source is there, it is not the place. This paragraph should be placed in a different section on Mythology.

"Gardens in ancient Middle Eastern mythology were a motif for sacred space, and the trees in Eden related to God as the source of life and wisdom-, the serpent represented a chaos-creature promoting disorder in God's universe; and Adam and Eve, in attempting to make themselves the center of order and the source of wisdom, admitted disorder into the ordered world God had created. "Rafaelosornio (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Rafaelosornio, Romans 5:12. Elizium23 (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Rafaelosornio, the clause you object to is this: "the story (of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3) does not name their transgression as a sin." The source is identified as Ian A. McFarland's "In Adam's Fall", which has the following: "though the transgression of Adam and Eve is easily the most well known sin in the Bible, it is not named as a sin in Genesis." In that quote, it's McFarland who calls it a sin, not Genesis, and McFarland unequivocally says that it is not named as a sin in Genesis." I'll revert to follow the source as soon as the block is lifted, and we can take it to dispute resolution. Now please stop edit warring.Achar Sva (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Achar Sva, no, you won't. Elizium23 (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Achar Sva, dispute resolution now, or be reported. Elizium23 (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Rafaelosornio, please suggest the dispute resolution forum of your choice. Achar Sva (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, Elizium23, what's your opinion on this specific dispute? Achar Sva (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I would be pleased to answer that, as soon as I can figure out what the dispute is. The reason this won't be resolved anytime soon is because the dispute sprawls over sections and topics and sources. There is no one dispute, there is a morass of disputes, all being simultaneously fought with reverts. Elizium23 (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Achar Sva First of all, it's not what you think, it's what the source says. If the author says that the transgression of Adam and Eve is a sin, but does not appear as a sin in Genesis, the source must be respected. You cannot accommodate the text your way, and put the text of the source incompletely. Either the full text of the source is cited or it is better not to place it.Rafaelosornio (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to give an example, when Cain killed Abel, not because Genesis does not say that the Abel's murder was a "sin" does it mean that Abel's murder was not a sin in religious terms. The same happens with the transgression of Adam and Eve, Ian A. McFarland says that the transgression of Adam and Eve is a sin although it is not named as a sin in Genesis. But you want to accommodate the text to your liking, making those who read the article believe that the transgression of Adam and Eve is not a sin. In the New Testament if it is named as sin, but not because Genesis does not use the word sin, it means that the transgression of Adam and Eve is not a sin.Rafaelosornio (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"Splitting hairs" much? Synonyms & Antonyms for transgression: Synonyms -breach, crime, debt, error, lawbreaking, malefaction, misdeed, misdoing, offense (or offence), sin, trespass, violation, wrongdoin[4] Manannan67 (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23 , As I understand it, the dispute is that Rafaelosornio wishes to add the fact that our source uses the word "sin", while I want to keep it to the fact that Genesis does not. It seems very, very petty, and Manannan67 seems to agree. Can we perhaps find a form of words that accommodates both? Achar Sva (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Just quote the source. "Lutheran theologian Ian A. McFarland says, '[I]t is worth noting that though the transgression of Adam and Eve is easily the most well known sin in the Bible, it is not named as sin in Genesis.'"[5] (Adam's Fall, Chapter 1) -this would seem to cover both views. (n.b., absent a page number, the citation should be amended to at least narrow it down to the chapter.) But having read the quote, my question is What does it have to do with anything? Manannan67 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Just found how this is somewhat interesting. McFarland is cited for the statement "... the story does not name the transgression of Adam and Eve as a sin." Yet, clearly,if you read his entire statement he, himself, does. "[I]t is worth noting that though the transgression of Adam and Eve is easily the most well known sin in the Bible" -Once again, a disturbing distortion of a RS. How does one cite a source without acknowledging precisely what information that source is presenting? Manannan67 (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Achar Sva, mmm, no. The dispute sprawls over this article as well as Immaculate Conception and possibly also Perpetual virginity of Mary, all of which I've been watching as you gave vast overhauls without much consensus, so I think we need a centralized place to pull this all together and discuss the root causes of these issues, rather than trying to litigate every single edit on its paltry merits each time they come up. Elizium23 (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Mistranslated Romans as source for Augustine: ABSURD

Augustine likely could read the "Letters of Paul" in their "original" far better than any of us today, despite his resentment for his Greek teacher - "Bible Greek" was way closer then to a studious of scripture than it is now. The article posits that Augustine's conception of original sin was based on a mistranslated passage in Paul the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans, which appears unreferenced? (references seem to be to Augustine's own interpretation of this matter).

Could this "mistranslation" issue be specifically referenced? Did Augustine himself quote this matter using that "wrong" Latin? Apparently we are to believe that Augustine (see ref to O'Donnel, 2006, in the Augustine article) was not very proficient in Greek. Was it THIS bad? This matter being so very central to this article (as in, The doctrine of original sin ... only became fully formed with the writings of Augustine) would deserve more details, more certainty. I personally believe that Augustine was chasing his own hangups, and, perhaps, but just perhaps, justifying them partially out of a mistaken translation that was all that he knew of the matter (curious, as any Bible scholar at any time will have several translations and several "original" as a basis for analysis, see Jerome &c.). That he were ignorant of the text he used being a bad translation, and depend solely on it, I would say remains to be seen, needs more context.

I, for one, would want some certainty to be making this argument the centerpiece of this pretty good article. (full disclosure: I'm putting together some notes, perhaps for a book, where I assert that greed is The Original Sin, yes, concupiscence can be translated as greed, etc.) YamaPlos talk 20:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, so he quoted Ambrosiaster. But, did he quote (wrongly) Paul's Romans'? Not clear. And not trivial. I would doubt that Augustine would solely rely on some translation of Ambrosiaster, if he knew others. Did Augustine only rely on Ambrosiaster's translation in his other writings? It would be no news that a commenter of Scripture skews things by being selective on his translations. No news, but not honest. Not that we can fix Augustine, but at least we can fix our interpretation, plus this article :) YamaPlos talk 21:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The Vulgate (generally accepted as a "good translation") and Ambrosiaster's aren't that different, or are they? I don't see the substituted the language of all being in death "because all sinned" to "in him all sinned". mentioned in the article. They both have in quo omnes peccaverunt, because they all sinned.

Vulgate:

propterea sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intravit et per peccatum mors et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit in quo omnes peccaverunt

Ambrosiaster:

Propterea sicut per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit et per peccatum mors et sic in omnes homines pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt.

Ambrosiaster's commentary:

1. quoniam superius dei gratiam per Christum datam ostendit secundum ordinem veritatis, nunc ipsum ordinem unius dei patris per unum Christum filium eius declarat, ut quia unus Adam - id est Eva, quia et mulier Adam est - peccavit in omnibus, ita unus Christus filius dei peccatum vicit in omnibus. et quia propositum gratiae dei erga genus humanum ostendit. ut ipsa primordia peccati manifestaret, ab Adam coepit, qui primum peccavit, ut providentiam unius dei per unum reformasse doceret, quod per unum lapsum fuerat et tractum in mortem.

2. hic ergo unus est, per quem salvati hanc illi reverentiam quam deo patri debemus, ipso volente. dicit enim idem alio loco: qui in his servit Christo, placet deo, cum scriptum sit: dominum deum tuum adorabis et ipsi soli servies. si ergo soli deo serviendum dicit, et Christo servire praecepit, in unitate enim dei est Christus nec dispar aut alter deus, quando cum soli deo serviendum lex conminetur, Christo serviens deo placere dicatur. igitur sicut per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit et per peccatum mors, ita et per unum Christum damnatio peccati et mors peccati praestans vitam aeternam, quod inferius declarat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaplos (talk • contribs) 21:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Is the Garden of Eden a true story?

This is for Rafaelosornio, who claims that my editing in the section Adam and Eve "does not come in the book" which serves as the source. I'll go through the points at issue one by one. Quotes are from my version of the paragraph.

• "Though the transgression of Adam and Eve is easily the most well known sin in the Bible, it is not named as sin in Genesis."

- This is a direct quote, and you can check it here.

• Christians have traditionally taken the story told in Genesis 3, in which Adam and Even disobey God by eating the fruit of the forbidden tree and are consequently expelled from Eden, as telling of the origin all human sin.

- You don't seem to object to this, but in case you do, the passage in Collins is: "Traditionally Christians ... have taken the account of the 'disobedience' in Genesis 3 as narrating the origin of all human sin..." Original here, top of the page.

• Many 20th century scholars, however, cast doubt on this interpretation, pointing out that this way of reading Genesis derives from Saint Paul and the New Testament, that a close reading of Genesis leads to different conclusions, and that the story of the Fall is nowhere cited or referred to in the Old Testament, implying its minimal significance there.

- The passage backing this sentence reads: "Many contemporary scholars have cast doubt on this traditional understanding..." He then quotes James Barr, who says it "'derives essentially from Saint Paul'", following this with "while a close reading of Genesis on its own terms will lead to different conclusions." He then mentions Claus Westermann, who "insisted that Genesis 3 ... is of minimal importance in the entire Old Testament." All this is in the second paragraph on the same page linked above.

• Adam is not, in any case, an actual human being, which makes it difficult to comprehend how his supposed actions could impact real lives many generations later.

- I take it you're not insisting that Adam was a real person - perhaps you'd care to confirm whether you do or do not believe this.

Your revision doesn't actually change much of this, but it does introduce a great deal of pov commentary. For the first sentence you change a simple statement ("Though the transgression of Adam and Eve is easily the most well known sin in the Bible, it is not named as sin in Genesis") by adding "According to Lutheran theologian Ian A. McFarland...", as if there might be some doubt, it's an objective fact that the Hebrew word for sin is not used in Genesis 3.

You add that "it is named as a sin in the New Testament." SO what? This paragraph is about the Old Testament.

You change "Many 20th century scholars ... have cast doubt on this interpretation" (i.e., the interpretation of Genesis 3 as an account of the origin of all human sin) to "Many contemporary scholars have cast doubt on this traditional understanding of the origins both of humans and of sin." No they haven't. What they've cast doubt on is an interpretation of Genesis 3, which is a matter of biblical interpretation, not of the origin of sin, which is a theological question.

You say that "James Barr ... asserted that the conventional way of reading Genesis “derives essentially from St Paul...” Asserted? How about noted, or pointed out? This is what I mean by your use of pov language.

You say that Westermann "insisted that Genesis 3 ... is of minimal importance in the entire Old Testament..." Insisted? Why not stressed? Why not agreed? This is pov language.

And then when we say that Adam wasn't real, you want to add a long preamble in which it seems that this idea originates with Peter Enns.

I'm willing to assume good faith, but your way of editing is tendentious (let's say unintentionally). If you now want to take this to dispute resolution, that's fine - in fact it may be unavoidable.Achar Sva (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The only thing you are doing is accommodating your original research with phrases that certain authors never said, when you quote a quote you must quote the author and not change his commentary to your liking. You must quote the phrase as is and not modify it, much less not mention the author who quotes it.

It is what the book called Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin really says and you are trying to modify to your linking:

Traditionally Christians, like the Jews from whom they arose, have read the story of Adam and Eve in the opening chapters of the Bible as describing the first human beings, from whom all other humans descend. They have also taken the account of the “disobedience” in Genesis 3 as narrating the origin of all human sin: that is, these readers have supposed that God first made humans morally innocent and that the events of Genesis 3 transformed the moral condition of Adam and Eve, and thus of all humankind after them.

Many contemporary scholars have cast doubt on this traditional understanding of the origins both of humans and of sin. For example, James Barr (1924–2006), a biblical scholar of considerable influence in the twentieth century, asserted that the conventional way of reading Genesis “derives essentially from St Paul,” while a close reading of

Genesis on its own terms will lead to different conclusions. Further, Claus Westermann (1909–2002), another influential scholar, insisted that Genesis 3 (taken as a “fall” story) is of minimal importance in the entire Old Testament: “It is nowhere cited or presumed in the Old Testament; its significance is limited to primeval events.” And Peter Enns, an Old Testament scholar with an evangelical background, has carried forward this notion that the Old Testament (as distinct from Paul) does not attribute human sinfulness to Adam’s primal disobedience; indeed, it is a mistake to take Adam in Genesis as the actual first human being: “Paul’s Adam is not a result of a ‘straight’ reading of the Old Testament.”

Rafaelosornio (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

About the quote "Though the transgression of Adam and Eve is easily the most well known sin in the Bible, it is not named as sin in Genesis.", yes it comes in the other book and it remains in the article, I haven't delete it. You know that I refer to the other book called "Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin" where your original research doesn't come in this book. Rafaelosornio (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Rafaelosornio, thanks for explaining your understanding of how editing in Wikipedia should be done, but the idea that it has to consist entirely of quotes is completely wrong - it would a violation of copyright. What we do is paraphrase, which is what I've done. If you can specify where my paraphrase of Collins falls short, fine, but you haven't attempted to do it.

At this stage, though, I'd like an answer to this question, and I hope you're not deliberately avoiding it: Do you or don't you believe that the events in Genesis 3 really happened, and that Adam and Eve were real people? No Adam means no sin of Adam... Achar Sva (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You are totally changing the idea, you are distorting the texts and explaining in your own words something that does not come in the book. Authors' quotes cannot be altered the way you do.

About the other, I do not know if Adam existed or not, the important thing is to stick to the sources and what they say without altering and modifying its content.Rafaelosornio (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I've invited you to explain just where you think I've distorted the sources (and explained that an article can't be a string of direct quotes); the invitation is still open. But I'm fascinated that you leave the door open to Adam being real. Do you think the Garden of Eden might have been real too? A real talking snake? As I said before, no Garden of Eden, no Fall of Man. So, where do you stand? Achar Sva (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Claus Westermann (1909–2002) notes that Genesis 3 "is nowhere cited or presumed in the Old Testament

Should that be "New Testament"?

Nope, it should be Old Testament. Achar Sva (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

---

I'll just note that a lot of frustration could have been avoided if page numbers were cited. This is generally possible even with Kindle (https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201730220). Even if page numbers are unavailable, you can show extra fields in the citation window and input the chapter. Readingwords (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Contradiction in the heading Definition vs Roman Catholic views

In the definition section it is written "For Catholics, original sin is a state, implying that infants are guilty at birth", and in the Roman Catholic view section "This "state of deprivation of the original holiness and justice ... transmitted to the descendants of Adam along with human nature" (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 76) involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on their part"

The source for the former quote is listed as "Ritchie & 2017 174" which does not exist in the bibliography, so I do not see an actual source for the claim.

Should this contradiction be resolved in favor of the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Definition section changed to say that "For Catholics, original sin is a state, one that does not imply personal guilt."? Mister Emu (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

You're right, it was a fake source, there was no way to verify the sources of the writing.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing

Achar Sva, in this edit you added references to Alter (2009) and Boring (2012), but didn't add the corresponding bibliographic information to the "Bibliography" section at the bottom of the article. Might I ask you to do that to aid verifiability of the references? Thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Wham2001 - that would be Alter's translation of and commentary on Palms and Boring's "Introduction to the New Testament". Thanks for drawing it to my attention, I'll fix it tomorrow. Achar Sva (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Exegesis in the history section?

The history section contains a paragraph arguing that the doctrine does not follow from the scriptures. The paragraph beginning "Genesis 3, the story of the Garden of Eden, makes no association between sex and the disobedience...". Is this in the appropriate section? Is it appropriate in the article at all? 217.180.201.228 (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

It's history in that it tells what the doctrine does not originate from (i.e., the idea that it has its origins in the Bible is a myth). But do you have an edit to suggest?Achar Sva (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

A myth? Please tell me the source. One thing is that Genesis is considered a myth and another thing is that those who raised the idea are a myth, Saint Augustine and the others are not a myth. Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say St Augustine is a myth, I said it's a myth that the idea of original sin has its origins in the Bible. I'll grant you that the English of that sentence is complex. Achar Sva (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"21.For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being. 22.For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life, " 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 (New American Bible)

I think it is pretty clear in the Bible that because of Adam's sin every man has become susceptible to death. Thus, although some later theories developed around this idea are clearly post-biblical (namely, Augustine's theory of hereditary moral guilt), to describe the whole doctrine as non-biblical in origin seems to be pretty radical. Potatín5 (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't me who said that original sin is post-biblical, it was our source. Achar Sva (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that at some points what the sources show is not that the doctrine of Original Sin as a whole is a post-biblical in origin, but that some elements associated with it are post-biblical. For example, our sources state concerning the passage Genesis 3: "the story of the Garden of Eden, makes no association between sex and the disobedience of Adam and Eve, nor is the serpent associated with Satan, nor are the words "sin," "transgression," "rebellion," or "guilt" mentioned". However, an association between sex and the disobedience is not an inherent element of the doctrine of Original Sin, but only the position of some historical theologians (e.g. Augustine), and it was even rejected later by Anselm.

A proper definition of the concept of Original Sin is that given by the Catholic Encyclopedia: "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." Here there is no reference to an association between sex and the disobedience or an identification of the serpent with Satan (as in the later Book of Wisdom), it's only the sin of Adam and Eve as described in Genesis 3 and its consequences. Potatín5 (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Apart from that, I am noting that some sources seem to give contradictory accounts on the history of Original Sin. For example, whereas Toews 2013, pp. 48–61 claims that Origen rejected the existence of a sinful state inherited from Adam, other sources, such as this one or the page 210 of this one claim the opposite. Likewise, whereas in one section of our article it is stated the Clement of Alexandria "propose that sin was inherited from Adam", in another section it is stated that he rejected the doctrine of Original Sin. Potatín5 (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, Genesis is not a myth, it's a book. It contains myths, but it is not, in itself, a myth. Achar Sva (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)