Jay's take on original sin

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Jay313

The question that immediately comes to mind is: What about infants, or those with mental illness or physical disabilities? Augustine famously formulated his doctrine of original sin as a defense for the necessity of infant baptism. In his view, all children were born sinners and condemned to hell because of biologically inherited sin, unless they had been baptized. Although many Christians believe that, I obviously find it unjust.

And I think these only become troubling in a legalistic system as well as one that thinks of heaven and hell as reward and punishment.

@Jay313

children are not innocent, they are ignorant

It is correct to say that children are ignorant but it is not correct to say they are not innocent. For if they are not innocent then what are they guilty of? By your own words they are not guilty of anything except what they have done. So they certainly start out as innocent, right? Then in accord with the process of learning they try things out – for many it is whatever wacky ideas pop into their head. Then learning what works leads to the formation of habits – both good and bad, and that is when sin becomes part of the equation. Age has nothing to do with it except that with time habits become stronger and harder to change.

@Jay313

but we don’t hold it against them

Not holding children accountable for their actions is the surest way of teaching them not to learn from their mistakes. I would remind you of Jesus telling us to become as a little child to suggest that the difference is not a matter of accountability but of nature and character. It is simply that children generally have the nature and character required for heaven, because they are in the process of learning rather than locked into a set of ingrained habits. So I do not think it is matter of some legalistic loophole where children are not held accountable but simply a matter of whether or not people have lost a childlike faith in life and goodness, and instead “stained by the world” follow habits such as looking out for number one and taking advantage whenever possible to become the winners no matter what.

It is not a question of how old someone is but whether they are willing to learn and change. Children as young as 4 have done horrific things but you generally don’t find serial killers younger than 14. It takes time for such behaviors to become habitual. But I am not betting on a free pass for anyone based on age, because I just don’t think it works that way.

@Jay313

Christ doesn’t sentence the little children to hell. To such belong the kingdom of God. Any just concept of original sin cannot mean it was biologically inherited and therefore rendered a child guilty in God’s eyes. In my view, such a thought is monstrous.

It is monstrous no matter what the age, whether children or adult. So I don’t believe God sentences anyone to hell. I believe it is something that people do to themselves. And frankly that is something you can see people doing to themselves all the time with their own self-destructive habits.

@Jay313

Sin involves a decision to knowingly violate one’s conscience. Ha’adam was not created with the knowledge of good and evil; he acquired it. Likewise, children are not born with the knowledge of good and evil; they acquire it. We call that process “maturation.”

So if a person never learns right from wrong, and never develops a conscience, then they are not accountable? (didn’t you say they don’t start with any innate knowledge of right and wrong?) Anyway, we don’t accept ignorance as an excuse because learning what is acceptable is one of our own responsibilities.

@Jay313

Children are prisoners of the moment. They are driven by what Augustine would call “concupiscence” – desire. It manifests around the age of 2, when the child begins to form a separate identity apart from the mother. Kids want what they want and they want it now, consequences be damned. Such is the state of childhood.

All children are not the same. Some learn to plan things out quite young and other remain prisoners of the moment most of their lives.

@Jay313

The consequences listed in Genesis 3 are all anachronisms – pain in childbirth, patriarchy, painful toil of the ground, physical death

Physical death is not a consequence of the fall. Others are consequences of what they did – either bad habits themselves or measures to overcome bad habits and give humanity some hope for the future. For example, the only way to overcome this bad habit of blaming God for our mistakes was to make us live by our own efforts.

@Jay313

Humanity was cast from the garden and barred from the presence of God. From that moment on, all of us were spiritually dead, cut off from communication with the living God. Thus, every child is born alienated from God.

But what is it that can possibly create such a separation between parent (God) and child? There is only one thing. It is only when the presence of the parent in the child’s life does more harm than good.

[NickolaosPappas (Nick)]

If the other religions are a path to God as you state and believe it is it contradicts the bible. The only way to the Father is through me. Sure not all unbelievers will not get saved im sire a lot of them will but if all religions lead to God might as well beign pantheistic. So a question. Do you think that all religions lead to God and if so isnt that a contradiction to what Jesus said? Thanks Leo

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

Referring to George’s idea that sin is the part of God’s teachings that guide humanity to what is holy:

@NickolaosPappas

The hebrew word of sin is khata. Meaning to fail a particular goal. In the sense a spiritual goal.What i understand from your post is youre saying that God created sin so that he could teach us what is holy?

God didn’t create sin, God gave standards. It’s the rebellion against and failure to meet the standards that that is sin, it’s not a created entity. It’s like a measurement. God can create the ruler (what counts as righteousness) but each individual measurement taken with the ruler is not a creation, it’s an evaluation of how something lines up with the ruler. Is a measurement a “thing”? My current age is not a thing that came into my life on my last birthday or part of how I am created. It’s a measurement.

It seems to me we talk about sin like an entity, not an evaluation all the time (when sin entered the world, can sin be inherited, etc) I realize Paul and James personified or objectified sin to some extent in their writings, but I think in a non-rhetorical sense, sin is a state of rebellion, not an entity, and treating it like a “thing” confuses issues.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

Jay. When was the Fall in history? Apart from the emergence of behavioural modernity 40,000 years ago? Which is in the history of our genes and remains.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@MOls

If I have understood the views you present in your podcast: you do not see Adam and Eve as a literal, historical couple, but you read their story as being symbolic of every person’s experience. Is that right?

Partly right. Adam and Eve serve as archetypes, which is a literary device that represents a universal pattern. Thus, ha’adam (the man) serves a dual purpose: he represents all of humanity and every individual within it.

@MOls

When did Sin (or Moral Culpability) originate? Did Sin enter the entire population all at the same time, or did it spread in some way as people developed an ability for moral reasoning? Did God endow people with that sense of morality, or did morality evolve into the population? When did God start holding people responsible for their moral failings?

I think I answered most of these above, but I’ll run through it just to clarify. Animals behave in ways that would be called “evil” for a human being, but they are not considered sinful or morally culpable. So “sinfulness” has evolutionary roots, but “morality” wasn’t possible until humanity acquired abstract language, which is necessary to symbolize and categorize individual actions as “good” or “evil.” Even Frans de Waal, who argues that primates have a form of morality, agrees that apes lack the “community concern” that drives us to “develop notions of right and wrong for everyone around,” not just ourselves and our immediate relations. This level of morality “requires greater levels of abstraction as well as the anticipation of what may happen if we let others get away with behavior that doesn’t even directly affect us. We have the capacity to imagine its impact on the greater good.” (The Bonobo and the Atheist, 234).

Did sin enter the population at the same time, or did it spread as people developed an ability for moral reasoning?

Both. Language and morality are cultural phenomena. That is, grammar, lexicon, and social norms (“proper” behavior) all form part of the “shared knowledge” that everyone in a group holds in common. One person could not have “invented” either language or morality. Both developed in a population over time until they reached a “tipping point,” so to speak. The same cultural dynamics that led to fully modern language and morality also propagate the same. I explain the two most common means of cultural reproduction here: A Primer on Culture and a Warning about Role Models.

Did God endow people with that sense of morality, or did morality evolve into the population? When did God start holding people responsible for their moral failings?

God endowed people with a sense of morality through the evolutionary process. The birth of “conscience” was the birth of moral responsibility. When does God start holding a child responsible for his/her moral failings? It’s a fuzzy line, but we all cross it sooner or later. The same happened with humanity as a whole.

@mitchellmckain

It is correct to say that children are ignorant but it is not correct to say they are not innocent. For if they are not innocent then what are they guilty of? By your own words they are not guilty of anything except what they have done. So they certainly start out as innocent, right?

In their case, they are innocent because they are ignorant. The reason for the hair-splitting is because people imagine Adam and Eve’s “innocence” as a state of sinless perfection, which clearly has never existed in the world.

@mitchellmckain

Not holding children accountable for their actions is the surest way of teaching them not to learn from their mistakes.

Children aren’t held to the same standards as adolescents or adults. I’d be glad to provide examples, if it’s necessary.

@mitchellmckain

It is not a question of how old someone is but whether they are willing to learn and change. Children as young as 4 have done horrific things but you generally don’t find serial killers younger than 14. It takes time for such behaviors to become habitual.

This is pretty far off base. I worked for years in the juvenile justice system, and I worked for years as a special education teacher. Sociopaths do not become that way because of habit, and a sociopath can’t “learn” to empathize or be taught to “grow” a conscience. A 4-yr-old may find a gun in Daddy’s closet and shoot a sibling, but he won’t be charged for murder because he can’t understand the consequences of his actions, not because he still has time to learn and change that sort of behavior.

@mitchellmckain

All children are not the same. Some learn to plan things out quite young and other remain prisoners of the moment most of their lives.

You don’t understand childhood brain development.

@mitchellmckain

Physical death is not a consequence of the fall.

I said it was an anachronism of the text, not an actual consequence.

@mitchellmckain

But what is it that can possibly create such a separation between parent (God) and child? There is only one thing. It is only when the presence of the parent in the child’s life does more harm than good.

Agreed. We were barred from God’s presence for our own good.

@Klax

Jay. When was the Fall in history? Apart from the emergence of behavioural modernity 40,000 years ago? Which is in the history of our genes and remains.

The Fall was the result of three interrelated processes – one biological (brain evolution) and two cultural (language and morality, both of which rely on empathy and shared knowledge).

The evolution of the brain that we now possess began with enlargement of the entire organ and culminated with “globularity,” which involved the reorganization and rewiring of the brain into an integrated whole. That process began about 300,000 years ago (Jebel Irhoud, Morrocco) and culminated between 100,000-35,000 years ago. Here’s a key paper on the subject:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/1/eaao5961.short

From the abstract: Brain shape evolved gradually within the H. sapiens lineage, reaching present-day human variation between about 100,000 and 35,000 years ago. This process started only after other key features of craniofacial morphology appeared modern and paralleled the emergence of behavioral modernity as seen from the archaeological record.

Language and morality don’t fossilize, so tracing their development involves a lot of circumstantial evidence. Primary indicators are symbolic artifacts and the emergence of trade networks. The appearance of symbolic artifacts at Blombos ~100,000 years ago coincides with the expansion of trade networks from 100 km to 300 km, which indicates a language breakthrough of some sort.

Combining these indicators, I place the Fall just prior to humanity’s Out of Africa expansion, or around 65-75,000 years ago. This is roughly the “midpoint” of the process of globularization and also coincides with the explosion of the Toba supervolcano.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

In other words early behavioural modernity is the Fall and we’re damned since then?

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

Haha. Abandoned, not damned. Think the Prodigal Son who took his inheritance and squandered it. We took God’s gifts and went our own way and misused them. Were they all damned? I haven’t made up my mind about that yet, and my thoughts on universalism are in flux. Heaven and hell are just the easiest way to talk about it within the bounds of traditional Christianity.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

There was no other way to go but our own way, whatever that could have meant your 70,000+/-5000 years ago, and squandering and misuse are fine hindsight. God damns no one. Except in our myths.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Jay313

In their case, they are innocent because they are ignorant.

So are you retracting your original claim in the OP that people are innocent unless they have actually done something wrong??? OK maybe I misread that into your use of the word “justice” – I guess for you it is “justice” as long as God judges everyone by the same standards no matter how unreasonable they may be.

I certainly don’t believe that people are innocent if they simply don’t know that what they are doing is wrong.

@Jay313

The reason for the hair-splitting is because people imagine Adam and Eve’s “innocence” as a state of sinless perfection, which clearly has never existed in the world.

So contrary to what you said in your OP, you are claiming that children are born with sin. Because if they are not born with sin then they are sinless at that point. Personally, I have no theological need whatsoever to assign some kind of abstract sin to newborn infants. Do you? Really? But if children are born sinless then there is no reason to claim that there was no point at which Adam and Eve were without sin. To be sure I do not believe Adam and Eve were golems of dust and bone created by magic. But that doesn’t mean I think there were no such individuals and nothing special about about them – such as being raised by God Himself as their parent… kind of like… Jesus. I mean… just because I don’t believe in violations of the laws of nature doesn’t mean I don’t believe in miracles and the active involvement of God in the events of the world.

@Jay313

You don’t understand childhood brain development.

You don’t understand the difference between children and particles like electrons – between the science of psychology and the science of physics.

@Jay313

Children aren’t held to the same standards as adolescents or adults.

Irrelevant. Doesn’t change in the slightest the simple fact that not holding children accountable is the surest way of teaching them not to learn from their mistakes.

@Jay313

Sociopaths do not become that way because of habit

Let’s hear more about this understanding of how people become sociopaths which you are claiming to have.

@Jay313

I said it was an anachronism of the text, not an actual consequence.

No such thing (physical death is a consequence of the fall) is in the text.

@Jay313

The Fall was the result of three interrelated processes – one biological (brain evolution) and two cultural (language and morality, both of which rely on empathy and shared knowledge).

So the original sin is that of having a brain, language, and morality…

…interesting… (sarcasm font)

[aleo (Albert Leo)]

@NickolaosPappas

The only way to the Father is through me

This quote from John may well be the most quoted passage in the Bible, possibly because it is seen to give the power of exclusivity to Christianity. In several other posts I have raised the possibility that other authors of John’s gospel have a more accurate recall of Jesus’ words, which in fact were: “No one can come to me unless the Father calls him”.

There is a profound difference in what is implied, wouldn’t you agree?
Al Leo

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

In my experience, public speakers (and even internet posters) don’t say things only once and only in one way. So, I don’t think the use of one of these to erase the other is warranted.

After all… the version quoted by Nicholas is underlined by other passages such as 1 Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”.

But we should take note that in neither of these did Jesus say…

No one comes to the Father except by joining a Christian church.
No one comes to the Father except by saying the “Jesus” password.
No one comes to the Father except through an evangelical “Jesus” preacher.
No one comes to the Father except by reading the Bible.
etc…

For me what is actually said follows rather tautologically from the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus and the Father are one, so there is no coming to the Father without coming to Jesus.

[NickolaosPappas (Nick)]

Well it raises the question of all religions lead to God.because if im a pagan and know the whole Gospel and its message if my life as it is leads to God then why convert and believe in that Jesus

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

“All religions” covers a lot of ground including Satanism and the religion of the Aztecs. LOL

Lot of pagans have been led to Christianity including a lot in the Bible by the Apostle Paul who actually used some of their ideas to do so. So I wouldn’t say that people cannot be led to God by a pagan religion.

In any case… religion does not save people, and that includes Christianity. God does.

Are there many ways to salvation? No. I think the number of ways to salvation is exactly ZERO. Jesus words… “With men this is impossible.”

[NickolaosPappas (Nick)]

Agree but aa person with a mindest that all religions or better"gods" are the same will never see that

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

Jesus made clear the standard by which all humans are judged in 3 Parables found in Matthew 25.

Parable of the Ten Virgins or Bridesmaids. Message: Do not depend on someone else for your salvation.

Parable of the Talents Message: God takes the circumstances in which we live seriously.
:
Parable of the Sheep and the Goats Message " Whatever you did for the least of my brothers and sisters you did it for Me."

Adam and Eve chose to believe Satan over God for no reason, and failed to admit their guilt. We can only reverse the damage of sin in our lives, when we accept our responsibility for our selfishness so we can accept the Forgiveness of Jesus and the Love of the Father through the Holy Spirit.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Christy

Referring to George’s idea that sin is the part of God’s teachings that guide humanity to what is holy:

@NickolaosPappas

The hebrew word of sin is khata. Meaning to fail a particular goal. In the sense a spiritual goal.What i understand from your post is youre saying that God created sin so that he could teach us what is holy?

God didn’t create sin, God gave standards. It’s the rebellion against and failure to meet the standards that that is sin, it’s not a created entity. It’s like a measurement. God can create the ruler (what counts as righteousness) but each individual measurement taken with the ruler is not a creation, it’s an evaluation of how something lines up with the ruler. Is a measurement a “thing”? My current age is not a thing that came into my life on my last birthday or part of how I am created. It’s a measurement.

It seems to me we talk about sin like an entity, not an evaluation all the time (when sin entered the world, can sin be inherited, etc) I realize Paul and James personified or objectified sin to some extent in their writings, but I think in a non-rhetorical sense, sin is a state of rebellion, not an entity, and treating it like a “thing” confuses issues.

How is that ‘rebellion’ manifest in any meaningful way Christie?

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

I don’t understand your question.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Christy

I don’t understand your question.

Sorry, you say

@Christy

sin is a state of rebellion

from what? How? Where? When?

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

Sin is rebellion against God and his rightful rule. I didn’t make that up, it’s a basic Christian theological presupposition, a la Isaiah 53:6 and countless other passages. Like pretty much all the prophets.

I’m not all that interested in defending basic Christian conceptions of what of sin is with people who don’t believe it exists or don’t believe God holds rightful lordship over the world. You are more than entitled to your conceptions of things, but there isn’t enough common ground there to have a meaningful discussion of the topic of this thread.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Christy

Sin is rebellion against God and his rightful rule. I didn’t make that up, it’s a basic Christian theological presupposition, a la Isaiah 53:6 and countless other passages. Like pretty much all the prophets.

I’m not all that interested in defending basic Christian conceptions of what of sin is with people who don’t believe it exists or don’t believe God holds rightful lordship over the world. You are more than entitled to your conceptions of things, but there isn’t enough common ground there to have a meaningful discussion of the topic of this thread.

I beg to differ Christy. A large minority of the seven billion of us is increasingly rational, to the biological limitations of our ‘rhetorical’ (logos, ethos, pathos = rhetoric, an analogy for our minds themselves) minds and their morality. Including a large minority of Christians like me. For whom original sin is an excellent just so story on the human condition. I’m a sinner Christy. But rebellion against God and His rightful rule is not a helpful metaphor for rational minded people. For decades I tried to make it so and suffered and caused others to in its name. I sinned by trying to make it work.

So it’s most relevant.

I have no idea what ‘God holds rightful lordship over the world’ actually means in the real world. Or could possibly mean, what possible difference it could make. Apart from the way a child is in awe of their dad. It bigs us up, makes us feel significant under God, a God we project on. A God we make up. I have loved that God myself, for decades. Still do I’m afraid. I’m interested in exploring, confronting God as He is. And He’s nothing like the God we make up, the flat, cook book God of the fundamentalist aka historical-grammatical Bible.

We make meaning by walking. Together.