If Genesis is a metaphor, where did humans acquire original sin?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What exactly would original sin be a metaphor for?

The fact that there is something inherently and inescapably wicked about human nature, that we all experience from our earliest moments of consciousness, and that we can try to combat but can never entirely eradicate (at least, in a religious perspective, not without God's grace).

Interesting. I've always thought the concept to be one of my least favourite in theology, because it makes every single human essentially irredeemable without relying on an external agent. Even if I did think there was  a great maliciousness hidden within every human (i dont) I've always been of the belief that we ourselves can overcome it, not the machinations of a deity.

Oh, I'm very much an optimist myself regarding the future of humanity (I don't think I could be able to live a fulfilling life if I didn't have the hope, as generic and vague as it might be, that we are headed to a brighter future - cynicism just isn't for me). But that doesn't resolve the fact that evil exists in this world, more or less everywhere, and it's something we have to acknowledge. I know Freud is rightfully vilified for a lot of his writings, but I think he got one fundamental intuition very right about the existence of a "thanatos" (a drive toward violence, aggressiveness, oppression) in all of us.

I think we can tame and control this part of ourselves, especially through the development of a culture and a civilization that encourages the noblest traits of humanity. I think this can get us very far toward a society without war, crime and exploitation. But do you really think we could, by ourselves, fully extinguish something that is so deeply ingrained in our psyche? If there is a way to extinguish it (which I doubt), following the guidance of a being infinitely greater, better and purer than ourselves (which doesn't have to imply the absence of human agency, although I guess in DC's Calvinist view it does) strikes me as a sensible one.

I have a quite different conception of the problem of evil.  Our lack of omniscience guarantees that we will undertake evil actions.  Worse, we will do so in the belief that we will are acting in the name of good and with the knowledge that others will do evil unto us in the name of good. That knowledge of good and evil is what the Genesis tale is referring to.

[DC Al Fine]

What exactly would original sin be a metaphor for?

The fact that there is something inherently and inescapably wicked about human nature, that we all experience from our earliest moments of consciousness, and that we can try to combat but can never entirely eradicate (at least, in a religious perspective, not without God's grace).

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. You're arguing that original sin is a metaphor for... original sin?

I think we can tame and control this part of ourselves, especially through the development of a culture and a civilization that encourages the noblest traits of humanity. I think this can get us very far toward a society without war, crime and exploitation. But do you really think we could, by ourselves, fully extinguish something that is so deeply ingrained in our psyche? If there is a way to extinguish it (which I doubt), following the guidance of a being infinitely greater, better and purer than ourselves (which doesn't have to imply the absence of human agency, although I guess in DC's Calvinist view it does) strikes me as a sensible one.

In the Reformed view, the lack of human agency mainly deals with Depravity, Election etc. Sanctification on the other hand has a major human component.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In the Reformed view, the lack of human agency mainly deals with Depravity, Election etc. Sanctification on the other hand has a major human component.

Can you expand on this? The exact relationship between election and sanctification wasn't adequately taught in my Intro to Christian Traditions class last year.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I have a quite different conception of the problem of evil.  Our lack of omniscience guarantees that we will undertake evil actions.  Worse, we will do so in the belief that we will are acting in the name of good and with the knowledge that others will do evil unto us in the name of good. That knowledge of good and evil is what the Genesis tale is referring to.

I absolutely agree that lack of knowledge - specifically, lack of knowledge of others' perspectives and feelings, ie lack of empathy - is to a large extent the root of evil. I don't think that necessarily contradicts what I said. Because we don't experience others' emotions (or at least not to the extent that we experience our own), we are tempted to give in to all of our emotions, including those (pride, envy, greed, etc) that drive us toward evil. If we had full empathy, we would never give into these emotions, because by hurting others we would also be hurting ourselves.

I've actually given some thought recently to the idea that experiencing full empathy with the rest of humanity (or the rest of the sentient world, I'm not sure on this point) might be an interpretation of the Christian afterlife. The suffering identified with hell or purgatory would stem from the regret of realizing the suffering one has caused to others over the course of their life. I don't believe such suffering could possibly be eternal of course. I realize it's not a view than most traditional Christians would feel comfortable espousing, but I'd be happy to know if it's a permissible one.

What exactly would original sin be a metaphor for?

The fact that there is something inherently and inescapably wicked about human nature, that we all experience from our earliest moments of consciousness, and that we can try to combat but can never entirely eradicate (at least, in a religious perspective, not without God's grace).

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. You're arguing that original sin is a metaphor for... original sin?

I'm arguing that the original sin doesn't have to be understood in a material way that requires there being a clear "origin" to it, and that as such it doesn't require the Genesis to be literally true. Wasn't it the basis of Crabcake's question?

[DC Al Fine]

In the Reformed view, the lack of human agency mainly deals with Depravity, Election etc. Sanctification on the other hand has a major human component.

Can you expand on this? The exact relationship between election and sanctification wasn't adequately taught in my Intro to Christian Traditions class last year.

Sure. This is a common misconception of Reformed theology. Teachers tend to just talk about TULIP when introducing Calvinism, either due to lack of time or theological bias. This gives the false impression that Reformed theology is purely deterministic.

The Reformed view is that all humans, elect and reprobate are dead in their sins, unable to love God of their own free will. The Holy Spirit then moves in the elect, regenerating them so that they can repent. While the regenerate person is now freed to repent and possesses all the assurances one associates with Calvinism.

However, they are not completely free of their old self and therefore can still choose to do evil. In fact at this point, our view resembles Arminianism, except for the perseverance of the saints. The regenerate soul is from then on 'at war' with the old self, and begins to overcome it via his own effort, prayer, and discipline, with the aid of the Holy Spirit. Sanctification therefore, is a joint effort with both human and divine components.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's very interesting, and certainly quite a bit better than the basic sense I had of Calvinism.

Something I'm still wondering, though, is why God would create souls (I know there's debate over what it exactly means for God to create souls, but I don't think they ought to be relevant) knowing that they are doomed to damnation and will not even have an opportunity to seek salvation.

[Greatest I am]

There is nothing quite like the sweet smell of burning human fat and flesh.

God gets off on it.

Regards
DL