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

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

For Christians who believe in evolution, I'm slightly curious. Do all humans possess that original sin that Christ sacrifices himself to repent on her behalf? Where did we get it if not from the apple?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That assumes one accepts the point of view that the reason a substitutional sacrifice was needed was because God required it. I don't. It was needed because some people required it as proof that the Divine loves them despite the human frailties they perceive as making them unlovable. Our original sin was not eating some random piece of fruit, it was doubting God's love.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think "being a metaphor" and "being true" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

The concept of original sin, in its most basic form, is something even I in some sense believe in, and I'm not even a Christian.

[Blue3]

Original sin just means we have a tendency to be less than perfect. Life has had that from the beginning.

It's more of a metaphor for how every child eventually loses their innocence, gaining knowledge of good and evil.

[i4indyguy]

The concept of original sin, in its most basic form, is something even I in some sense believe in, and I'm not even a Christian.

This.

[Kingpoleon]

Genesis 1's time may be metaphorical without all of Genesis being metaphorical.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The existence of evolution does not have to mean that Genesis is a metaphor, or that original sin (however you interpret it) is a myth.  I personally believe that God created the world, including the original species that populated the Earth, and that they evolved after Adam and Eve's sin introduced death.  Although I don't think everything in the Bible can be interpreted or understood literally, I always interpreted the account of Genesis 3 as being literal because I see no other way for it to work.  And Paul seemed to take it literally, too.

As for original sin, I don't know that I believe in it the way that it's traditionally been understood.  I prefer the Eastern Christian understanding that humanity inherited Adam's weaknesses and fallibilities, but not his guilt.  Denying original sin doesn't require you to deny that we are all sinners; you simply have to accept human fallibility to acknowledge that everyone sins.

[Mr. Smith]

Men are to be punished for their own sins, not the first.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Denying original sin doesn't require you to deny that we are all sinners; you simply have to accept human fallibility to acknowledge that everyone sins.

[Illiniwek]

I swear I don't remember seeing this thread, but the question crossed my mind just yesterday. Interesting to see everyone's answers.

[ShadowRocket]

I like the suggestion that Adam and Eve were the first individuals to be given a rational soul and were thus the first "true" humans despite still being part of a larger population of people.

[Mopsus]

From the writings of St. Paul.

[Ebsy]

For me, original sin is an acknowledgement that by evolving to a point where humans can divine right and wrong and still choose to do something knowing full well that it is wrong, we gained both free will and sin.

[Antonio the Sixth]

For me, original sin is an acknowledgement that by evolving to a point where humans can divine right and wrong and still choose to do something knowing full well that it is wrong, we gained both free will and sin.

This might be the first of your posts I see that has any value. Hope you keep it up.

Anyway, this thread is even weirder than I remembered it. If Genesis is a metaphor, why can't the original sin be a metaphor as well? Why does there have to be a specific material and temporally determined process for acquiring original sin?

[DC Al Fine]

What exactly would original sin be a metaphor for?

[RFayette]

For Christians who believe in evolution, I'm slightly curious. Do all humans possess that original sin that Christ sacrifices himself to repent on her behalf? Where did we get it if not from the apple?

The Catholic position (and that held by many Protestants as well) is that Adam and Eve were real people and the first human beings, and that Adam and Eve's temptation by the serpent and subsequent death-causing sin are absolutely real events, even though Adam and Eve's bodies were formed through evolution (even though their souls were created by God, unique to humankind).  This is my position, though I attend a congregation which leans more on the young-Earth creationist side, a position I no longer hold.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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).

[Mopsus]

What exactly would original sin be a metaphor for?

The development of the superego.

One sees the beginning of said feature in chimps and wolves, for example, but only in man does it become pathological.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

What exactly would original sin be a metaphor for?

The development of the superego.

One sees the beginning of said feature in chimps and wolves, for example, but only in man does it become pathological.

[Mopsus]

^ haha, thanks! Right back at you, my friend.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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.

For Christians who believe in evolution, I'm slightly curious. Do all humans possess that original sin that Christ sacrifices himself to repent on her behalf? Where did we get it if not from the apple?

The Catholic position (and that held by many Protestants as well) is that Adam and Eve were real people and the first human beings, and that Adam and Eve's temptation by the serpent and subsequent death-causing sin are absolutely real events, even though Adam and Eve's bodies were formed through evolution (even though their souls were created by God, unique to humankind).  This is my position, though I attend a congregation which leans more on the young-Earth creationist side, a position I no longer hold.

so (and I'm not being a sarcastic euphoric antitheist here, just genuinely curious) were Adam and Eve two arbitrary early Homo sapiens granted souls and entry into Eden by the benevolence of God, and after being cast out had relations with other early humans ensuring that all descendants (and therefore all modern humans) both had souls and the taint of original sin?

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Greatest I am]

For Christians who believe in evolution, I'm slightly curious. Do all humans possess that original sin that Christ sacrifices himself to repent on her behalf? Where did we get it if not from the apple?

Consider that the ancient Jews saw Eden as our place of elevation and not a place of our fall.

Christianity reversed the original moral of that myth for their own ends, which appear to be to vilify both women and the many serpent cults that were around at the time.

Please Google --- The Original Meaning Of Original Sin

"Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue, the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants’.

Regards
DL

[RFayette]

For Christians who believe in evolution, I'm slightly curious. Do all humans possess that original sin that Christ sacrifices himself to repent on her behalf? Where did we get it if not from the apple?

The Catholic position (and that held by many Protestants as well) is that Adam and Eve were real people and the first human beings, and that Adam and Eve's temptation by the serpent and subsequent death-causing sin are absolutely real events, even though Adam and Eve's bodies were formed through evolution (even though their souls were created by God, unique to humankind).  This is my position, though I attend a congregation which leans more on the young-Earth creationist side, a position I no longer hold.

so (and I'm not being a sarcastic euphoric antitheist here, just genuinely curious) were Adam and Eve two arbitrary early Homo sapiens granted souls and entry into Eden by the benevolence of God, and after being cast out had relations with other early humans ensuring that all descendants (and therefore all modern humans) both had souls and the taint of original sin?

Well, Catholic Answers is pretty emphatic that Adam and Eve were the first human beings and that modern-day humans came from no other lineages other than those two.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Protestants who accept evolution tend to be more open-minded on the monogenism vs polygenism debate because they believe that while humans inherit a sin nature from Adam and Eve, they are not held directly responsible for Adam/Eve's sin.  The other issue, as can be seen from Pius's quote, is what demarcates a "true man."  I think the crux of the argument is that only those descended from Adam and Eve were true humans, even if others had similar bodies.

[ShadowRocket]

so (and I'm not being a sarcastic euphoric antitheist here, just genuinely curious) were Adam and Eve two arbitrary early Homo sapiens granted souls and entry into Eden by the benevolence of God, and after being cast out had relations with other early humans ensuring that all descendants (and therefore all modern humans) both had souls and the taint of original sin?

I think that sounds about right. I've seen that interpretation expressed by Catholic scholars who accept evolution but maintain a historical Adam and Eve and Fall.

I think that view works for the most part though I suppose it begs the question of whether or not Adam and Eve's children were engaged in a form of bestiality by mating with humans that didn't have rational souls. Though the traditional view involves incest among their children so I guess you have to pick your poison if one wants to maintain some form of monogenism.