The first part of my post is common knowledge amongst the historically and culturally interested, the comment by Campbell seems to indicate that ulterior motives had the story of mankind’s awakening become an accusation against women and serpents. I can’t see why Campbell should take the brunt for this, it sounds like attacking the messenger.
2 Likes
I agree the drives are not sinful. That was never the argument. That doesn’t change the fact that billions of years of evolution have given us these drives which give us the inclination to sin. That I the argument. As you said, the flesh is strong. We also have the drive of reciprocal altruism. But the fact that we have to overcome these physical instincts means there is something to overcome (an inclination or propensity to sin).
When the mind and heart is weak then our biological drives can be described as an inclination to pursue biological interests contrary to love and justice. But… that is like saying we have an inclination to do evil when we dismiss all the reasons for doing good. It is quite true but I don’t think the idea that all have a weak heart and mind as a result of the fall is correct. That we have a community of bad examples as a result of the fall, is a different matter.
But I will concede that people who make their physical drives an excuse for sin do indeed suffer from a weak mind or heart.
- Ahhh, … so you’re still not saying that my conjecture is wrong. You’re just saying that the Doctrine of Original Sin has been harmful. Is that closer to your nuance?
- Then perhaps you’ll be pleased to hear that, whatever the origin of “Original Sin” may have been, Jews pretty much as a whole, as far as I can tell, reject the notion of any inherited ancestral sin and Jesus, affirming instead that the Tanakh tells everybody how to please God: by taking up “the Yoke of Heaven”, which Jews can do by obeying the Law of Moses and non-Jews can do by obeying the Noahide Laws. No need for Jesus. Neat, huh?
- Trivial Note: As a rule, Noahidism involves a formal commitment acknowledged by a Rabbi.
As an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information your conjecture is acceptable. And yes, the doctrine of the original sin has been harmful.
2 Likes
- LOL! Thanks, I appreciate your concession that my conjecture “is acceptable”.
- Not that you’re interested, here’s the first presentation of my conjecture in this forum:
Notes on the Jewish Roots of the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin. - And here’s the first presentation of my conjecture on-line: [Post #60 and thereafter|
To Hebrew experts: did Eve sleep with the Serpent?.- I was particularly pleased with this “debut” of my conjecture because it was shared with a very diverse crowd, including an ultra-Orthodox and a Conservative Jew, neither of whom objected.
- To date, in this thread, I’ve not mentioned the inspiration for my conjecture: i.e. The Protoevangelium of James, Chapter 13., which is especially fascinating because:
- “The Gospel of James (or the Protoevangelium of James) is a second-century infancy gospel telling of the miraculous conception of the Virgin Mary, her upbringing and marriage to Joseph, the journey of the couple to Bethlehem, the birth of Jesus, and events immediately following.”
- At the risk of dulling the point of my conjecture, take a quick look at this Wikipedia Page, which discusses: The Serpent Seed Doctrine.
- Neat, huh?
1 Like
There is a reason for saying that your conjecture is acceptable, because when we read the Old Testament fable of the serpent, the language has many suggestive moments, which are picked up in your notes, suggesting a seduction with erotic undertones which are then included in the story of Joseph finding Mary pregnant. This is the way that stories develop and sometimes there is a profound element to them, but I feel no affinity towards the idea, because the original biblical fable is thoughtful enough.
I read these fables and stories as allegories, and I think that any of us could identify with the inquisitiveness at some stage in puberty that produces conscious awareness, but as soon as we say, “I am,” we become afraid and at a loss, because we have woken up from our innocence, having eaten the fruit of curiosity, and we start to see the opposites: the highs and the lows, the light and the shadows, and the danger outside of the confines of our metaphorical garden. Mythology is for me not what happened at some time but describes what is continually happening.
So, as interesting as your presentation is, it does nothing for me except give me some short entertainment.
Regards
2 Likes
- Well, at least we’ve entertained each other momentarily, if nothing else.
2 Likes
A Swedish Lutheran bishop explained it as a matter of being “practiced sinners”, which today would come out more like “professional sinners”: children sin without knowing what they’re doing, and thus haven’t built up any barriers to the Holy Spirit, whereas youth and adults have sinned darned well knowing that they’re doing wrong and have thus built barriers against even their own consciences. So the child can receive the grace of God via Baptism because there are no barriers whereas the adult who has built barriers has to throw down the barriers.
Logging in here for the first time in awhile and see 20 notifications on this convo…why do I get the feeling none of y’all are discussing the book or article in question? 
2 Likes
I read the excerpt from the published material…i take issue with the following statement the author makes…which is absolute nonsense and about as scholarly wrong as one can get…its truly a pathetic theological claim
“No matter your view of Scripture, you must admit that theology does not come fully formed from the Bible itself. Instead, Scripture provides a story from which we extract some data points: God created everything; humans all sin; Christ’s death and resurrection somehow save us,”
The reality for Christians is actually the complete opposite of the authors absurd statement. This is exactly why we have a wide variety of bad theology floating around…lies like this lead good people astray.
What this author is doing is turning the entire biblical narrative into a fairytale…a great story (but nothing more). Thats a catastrophic theological position leaving ones entire Christian world view completely exposed.
Basically this means Christs physical suffering and physical death on the cross are pointless…nothing more than a great fairytale. Christ didnt die to save us from the physical wages of sin and suffering, he died for a fairytale ending.
The problem with all or nothing theology is that if you cannot accept one part you are left with one alternative; Nothing!
7 day creation, a fantastic garden, a tower to the sky, a worldwide flood. We haven’t even reached Abraham, and you have lost credulity. The Gospel is lost before we even start.
The crucifixion is not about the origin of sin it is about the existence of sin. If you are giing to insist on believing in Adam then you will lose belief in Christ. Instead of promoting faith you are killing it.
If people cannot distinguish between reality and parable then the resurrection is placed on a par with the tree of life.
Original Sin kills faith. It gives people an excuse not to believe. They don’t accept the Garden story so they don’t accept the existence of sin. Or at least the relevance.
Christ died for each person not Adam. The sin is individual it is not Adam’s. You do not have to believe in Adam. You do have to believe in Christ.
Richard
Sorry… I am not finding those four theories discussed by the book very interesting.
1 Like
Thanks for bringing this old thread to my attention. Just last night at a non-denominational Bible study I attend, the discussion leader brought up original sin and said it was universally held, at which time on of the participants made a comment about it being in our DNA and Adam’s DNA must have mutated when he sinned and passed it down to us.
My tongue was tired of being bit, so I commented that now with CRISPR we could remove the offending bits of DNA and return to Eden, just to show how ridiculous that really was, then went on to explain how original sin could be integrated in an evolutionary framework, probably close to what Crisp and Green presents. But, it is difficult to express views this complex in a few sentences with those who have diverse levels of scientific literacy. I fear I butchered it somewhat, Therefore, bringing this book to my attention was a blessing, as I now have it on order to read and to share.
It also would be appropriate to link this podcast and book discussion in this thread:
2 Likes
It’s a tough question–many do find the concept of original sin really important to their faith. It’s a good thing the Haarsmas are involved, too, especially from a Reformed perspective, as that’s a deep and rich one.
My review from last year.
5 Likes
Nice review. I think Haarsma’s book would be a good reference for anyone interested in how evolution and original sin can co-exist.
While I doubt many minds will be changed, I see a fair number of people who are troubled by cognitive dissonance as their old understanding differs from what they see in science. Just knowing that some have been able to reconcile those beliefs or doctrines may be helpful.
2 Likes
The four approaches in this podcast episode is better though I would alter the second. This idea of Adam and Eve being representatives is only important in the first explanation. And thus more consistent with this idea of a cultural spread of sin to the rest of the species, an influence of ideas communicated by God setting Adam and Eve apart fits better with the second explanation.
I would have been hard put to not just start laughing. Then when challenged I would have pointed out that if you look at the history of the church, “original sin” is a Roman Catholic doctrine that somehow went unquestioned at the time of the Reformation despite the fact that it can’t be found in the early church Fathers.
2 Likes
It seems odd to me that an explanation I’ve heard frequently isn’t in the list: that God made Adam and Eve specially as representatives.