Talk:Original sin/Archive 1

message: Summary:  There is disagreement over this concept.  If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an advocacy site for a single sect, then it behooves Wikipedia to give all (or at least the larger) sides of the disagreement rather than try to hash out a single result--leave that for more specialized forums. Dogface 15:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary thus far 

message: The the text of the New Testament is subject to interpretation. There are more methods of interpretation leading to contradictory meanings. Therefore, any single interpretation of the text without including other interpretations is biased. Since there are other interpretations that say the NT text does not teach original sin, I dispute the NPOV of the paragraph "Original sin in The New Testament". Furthermore, I dispute the NPOV and accuracy of the statement that the doctrine of original sin is shared by most Christian churches. --charon 13:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the lack is due to the fact that for orthodox Anglicans the term 'Original Sin' is the name of an eroneous Catholic dogma, I don't think many protestants would be dropping by this particular article.  --Gorgonzilla 02:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original sin in The New Testament 

message: I added a two paragraph overview; it's a start, anyway.  Still need to make mention of grace and justification, I think, and perhaps of baptism and prevenient grace.  KHM03 17:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protestantism section

message: I don't necessarily object to the section "Original sin and mythology", but I do believe that several sentences don't belong here ("myth" ought to be explained on the article for Myth, not here), and also that the rest can be placed within the rest of the text.  Thoughts?  KHM03 01:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth 

message: In the opening section, a number of statements are made which do not conform with anything written in the Bible. For example, the Bible no where states that originally Adam and Eve enjoyed a great deal of communion with God, nor that they shared an intimate relationship with each other or with nature. Likewise, no diminishment of that communion or those intimate relationships is at all indicated after the sin. On the contrary, the fact that God made garments for Adam and Eve indicates that though he was "angry" with them, he nevertheless maintained His relationship with them. Also, the phrase "distortion of the relationship between man and woman" seems biased. The relationship changed, most definitely, but distortion would be a point-of-view. On the whole, it would be appropriate to refer to the change in relationship between God and man as "apparent" from the text, though not explicit.
Chet Kadmon, the Hebrew term given for Original Sin, is actually a back-formation from the Christian term "Original Sin." It is not found in Jewish classical literature (at least not generally).
Adam's original mission and mankind's current mission are not clearly stated. Adam was to attain absolute perfection through exercise of freedom of choice in not eating of the Tree of Knowledge. When he failed, the world and mankind fell to a lower level, one on which it becomes impossible to attain this perfection through a single choice. Instead, a great deal of sacrifice, suffering, and proper choices must be made, first to return Mankind to its original status, and then to reach the level of perfection Adam was originally intended to reach.
Cain's murder of Abel, while related to Adam's sin, seems irrelevant here.
"Evil incarnate" and Satan carry different meanings in Jewish traditions than in Christian teachings. Satan is not viewed as a power independent of God; rather, he is created by God to appear to have power and thus challenge humanity into recognizing God on their own. This was the challenge Adam was meant to overcome, and the challenge which his descendants work to overcome to this day.
The opening line, "The concept of Original Sin is derived in part from the episode...", seems to be inaccurate: Isn't it derived entirely from this episode?
I've edited the article to far better reflect the traditional Orthodox Jewish view of Adam's sin. I have studied many traditional Jewish sources on the matter and base what I write on them, particularly Luzzato's Knowledge of the Heart, cited in the article itself.
The views cited as "Reform" and "Conservative," indicating that Adam's choice was perhaps ultimately better for mankind actually also represent a school of thought within Orthodox Judaism, put forth most notably by Elijah E. Dessler in his work Letter from Elijah (partially translated into English as Strive for Truth!). Also, based on my clarifications of the Orthodox viewpoints, few discrepancies actually exist between the interpretations of the various branches of Judaism. The main discrepancy would apparently be that Reform and Conservative Judaism believe that Adam did not have free will before he ate of the fruit of the Tree; however, this presentation of the Reform and Conservative view would seem to be incorrect, as it is intrinsically unsustainable: if Adam in fact had no free will, he would not have been able to choose to cross God's will and eat of the fruit of the tree. Some elements of bias also appear in the section on Reform and Conservative views, including the phrase "they were like robots."
I propose integrating the Reform and Conservative views into a general Jewish view, with the possible inclusion of the view that Adam's sin was actually ultimately positive as the position of some schools of thought.
Scorpiuss 19:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggestions of Scorpiuss above are good, and badly need to be implemented.  The section as-is does not accurately portray Judaism.  I'll see what I can do about revising that. User:NickDupree 06:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish View 

message: I removed this paragraph from the Roman Catholicism section...
:The Catholic Church did not accept all of Augustine's ideas (which Protestantism was to take further), in particular the opinion that involvement in Adam's guilt and punishment takes effect through the dependence of human procreation on the sexual passion, in which the spirit's inability to control flesh is evident.
While undoubtedly some Protestants view original sin as intimately connected with the procreative act, that statement isn't true of Protestantism as a whole.  KHM03 15:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better.  KHM03 19:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sept 8, 2005 revisions 

message: I went to a highly orthodox Church of England School, if a reference was being made to the Adam/Eve/Apple story in Genesis the term 'original sin' was never used, instead the term 'the fall' would be used. The term 'original sin' was uniquely identified with the Augustinian/RC doctrine of Original Sin and thus an error. 
I think that the article conflates two distinct issues. The first is the interpretation of the events in Genesis as a Judaic version of Pandora's box. I don't think that the claim that this interpretation of the fall of Adam is shared by most Christian denominations is at all controvertial. But I don't think that many protestant theologians would use the term 'Original Sin' here.
The second is Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin since adopted by the Roman Catholic church as orthodox. While Calvin and Luther created their own versions of Augustine's doctrine these are very different and I don't think the article gives any clear idea of what the differences are. Augustine's position is that babies are condemned to hell from conception and that the only possible means of salvation is intervention through the church (meaning of course the orthodox Church). This is certainly not what Calvin or Luther were up to. --Gorgonzilla 01:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you try and make the edits and see how the community feels.  Also, Anglican priest John Wesley, who greatly emphasized the Fall, also used the term "original sin".  So maybe it just depends upon the individual's preference.  KHM03 10:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your comments; I agree with your suggestions and will try to incorporate them. Have you considered becoming a wikipedia editor yourself? It's easy, and no harder than editing this discussion page. :-) Wesley 19:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflates the fall and Augustines doctrine 

message: yes, I think it's possible that someone might look for Original Sin (movie) at just the movie title, so I think it's worth keeping the disambiguation line. Wesley 19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambiguation 

message: There is no real reason for the Unification Church to have a page on their theological views of the Fall which is seperate from everyone elses, unless you were to give everyone else their own page. Nedlum 06:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no real reason for the Unification Church to be mentioned at all - they're such a minor group. PiCo 10:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unification 

message: An editor has changed the sentence: 
:Several denominations deny offering infant baptism altogether, and insist baptism should be performed only to consenting or adult believers.
to
:Several denominations deny offering infant baptism altogether, and insist baptism should be performed only to confessing believers.
I have changed it to: 
:Several denominations deny offering infant baptism altogether and insist that only persons who have reached the "age of accountability" should be baptized.
Does anyone think we should add the reason these denominations deny infant baptism: 1) they may not believe in original sin, 2) they may not believe children sin until after they have reached the "age of accountability. ?
Please post your views.--Drboisclair 17:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Believers' Baptism" and age of accountability 

message: This article need a great deal of improvement to make it acceptable. I have been working on some articles related to Augustine (who was the foundational Christian thinker and teacher on the subject of original sin), and I just happend to wander into this article. I am relieved to see it has been removed from the "featured article" list. It needs expert attention to fix its many odd emphases. I am still reeling from reading  the Unification Church's view on Original sin. While sort of fascinating to realise one exists, this must be one of the most marginal views on Original Sin conceivable - yet it reads in the body of the article as if it is important in the bigger scheme of understandng "Original Sin". Still in shock I then went on to reads ths Seventh Day Adventist view. How on EARTH did these two relatively minor groups (in the vast scheme of things)  end up being subheadings of an article that FAILS TO COMPREHENSIVELY ANALYSE THE KEY TEACHER ON THE SUBJECT!!!!? I mean, whether you agree with Augustine or not, it needs to be here in a concise and clear way, or  the rest of the article os seriously undermined. It lacks credibility. As I have time, I'll wade in here.
Cor Unum 03:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A surprising and odd collection of information

message: Go with me on this one.  As Aquinas espoused, reason allows one to differ between good and evil, it allows humans to distinguish the truth.  Adam and Eve, by eating the fruit of knowledge, became aware of good and evil, and thus of the evil of their nakedness, so they covered themselves.  It then follows that the fruit of knowledge gave Adam and Eve reason.
It is also true that reason seperates men (and women) from animals.  Therefore, Adam and Eve could be considered animals before eating from the fruit of knowledge.  This has two results.  First, Eve's act of eating the fruit of knowledge would not be considered sinful any more than a dog eating a piece of meat left on the ground (Although her subsequent action of giving the fruit to Adam would be considered a sin).  Second, by eating the fruit of knowledge, Eve (and then Adam) gained reason, and thus became human.
I guess my question is, is there a flawed train of thought there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AstoVidatu (talk • contribs) 
:Yes. But please let's not turn this into a general discussion forum. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original SIn (?) 

message: I think this article needs tidying up, because of the pictures, eh? OneWeirdDude 18:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Housekeeping 

message: I don't think this recent edit is an improvement over the old text.  While it does provide some citations, I'm not convinced that they're relevant to original sin, or even to the point that the editor is trying to make.  E.g., the citation from the Talmud states that everything is in the hands of Heaven, yet he then goes on to argue that everything is in the hands of men (that is, that God does not influence anyone to do anything, good or evil).  Maybe the Talmud supports this view, and maybe it doesn't; I don't know anything about it one way or the other.  But the quotation offered here doesn't show that it does.
Furthermore, the transition to the discussion of concupiscence is jarring and unclear.  He begins talking about selfishness and Christianity criticizing it, but it's not clear why he says anything about selfishness when before he was talking about free choice.  Furthermore, this whole section is from a blatantly obvious point of view.  If it is kept, it needs to be edited to reflect a neutral point of view.
Finally, the editor professed to attempting to formulate a "unaversal" Jewish outlook for this article.  This neglects the differences in thinking on the subject between more liberal and more conservative branches of Judaism, which the old version at least attempted to address.  I'd agree that some information about Orthodox Judaism would have been helpful even in the old version; but at least the old version acknowledged the distinction.  This new edit doesn't seem to.
I would argue that this edit should be reversed, or at least heavily edited to reflect the information which the older version contained, to reflect the differences between branches of Judaism (or explain that on this question there are no differences, with citations to support that), and to reflect a neutral point of view.  This current edit does contain some interesting Jewish perspectives on concupiscence, but it belongs in a separate paragraph, and should also reflect the differences between the branches of Judaism, or at least explain that on this question differences do not exist.  
I didn't want to make these changes myself until I'd seen some opinions from others interested in this topic.
Dgoodmaniii 16:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support the reversion for the reasons you give, but also because it is not clear how the section relates to the subject of the article. It appears to cover a different topic. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Views on Original Sin