Of all of Man's inventions, religion has caused the most suffering.
3
Hummmm, long, long ago the Baptist back in the hill country of Kentucky dipped me twice under the muddy waters of Cherokee Creek. Ol’ cottonmouth moccasins with evil smiles watching the shoutin’ and singin’ spectacle from under the dark labyrinth of tree roots. The first time didn’t take, and neither did the second - water off a duck’s back....
Left The hill country when I was eighteen, never looked back - and have always enjoyed “mutual” sin immensely..
“Let’s all go down to the river......”
2
As a Christian, I applaud Mr. Sartwell. He does a good job identifying the problem with our world and facing a hard truth about human nature. Unfortunately, he does a poor job identifying the proper treatment for it.
From a Christian perspective, you are only half right when you write "The doctrine of original sin has often been held to be intolerably dark, a counsel of despair." That assumes you stop with the doctrine. Christianity doesn't stop there, however, providing hope through the Gospel.
If we are indeed inherently broken at our core, Mr. Sartwell assumes we can improve ourselves. But why should we be able to? That treats original sin as a cold, but what if instead it is a cancer? If we have cancer in our lungs, it would be arrogant to say, "I am going to cure myself." It takes a trained physician to not only diagnose our illness, but also to cure us through treatment.
Mr. Sartwell's treatise is the equivalent of saying, "I believe I have lung cancer, but I am going to perform surgery on myself to fix the problem."
If original sin is indeed true then, Mr. Sartwell, then each individual person has one of two options: either we must indeed "[consign] ourselves to the flames" because all is hopeless. Cancer without proper treatment will eat us alive, despite our best efforts. Or we must look to one who can cure us. The Bible says that person is Jesus Christ. Take him or leave him, but there is no other option.
4
Yes. Or perhaps another way to look at it is, how does the inherently flawed thing fix itself? Not possible or logical.
This article and discussion also assume that there is a true set of universal values, "rights" and "wrongs." But many refuse to acknowledge this - even though it is true.
1
Excellent comment!
1
Well said!
I think there is a degree of intellectual--well, theological--deceit, in trying to redefine such a loaded term as something other than it has been understood and framed for centuries. Original sin has been a strategy to set the foundation for the need of salvation--and a sacrificial salvation, at that. Original sin is a deficit which, paradoxically, could only be atoned for through a tortuous death, demanded by a God who simultaneously is supposed to embody compassion and unconditional love. To unravel the inherent incoherence of all these premises is, I think, impossible. A better strategy might be to take the tack attempted by Matthew Fox and coin a new term--in his case "Original Blessing"--which opens the door for a new interpretation of what being a dynamic, enlightenment-seeking human being might mean.
14
I agree with the author that, at this point in history, the most interesting reading of this myth relates to how it illuminates people's intrinsic capacity for evil as well as goodness. I think it is an undisputable fact that all humans are potential saints and monsters, and that anyone that tries to negate his or her dark side through naiveness or self deceit is, in the end, incapable of real empathy or understanding. The impossibility of separating the wheat and the chaff in daily life is one of the enduring spiritual mysteries of human existence.
"When you see a good man, think of emulating him; when you see a bad man, examine your own heart". (Confucius)
8
I believe in original goodness. It makes my world view much brighter.
19
"We are profoundly flawed." Come now. Geometry is not profoundly flawed because no one yet has drawn a perfect circle.
6
You are right that a perfect circle is an idealized concept, existing only in the human mind. By comparison, humans are not an idealized concept, but empirical creatures that could be profoundly flawed, or not, according to observation. Of course the term profoundly flawed requires a standard. The concept of human perfection requires a standard. What is it?
3
I believe deeply in humility, especially as it levens any self-regard that ascribes good fortune to superior abilities, rather than provenance.
I also believe that one ought to strive mightily and life-long to overcome, or at least ameliorate, personal shortcomings - especially as they have negative impacts on others.
But none of that requires that I believe in Original Sin, which to me suggests not a merciful New Testament-style Deity, but a carelessly arbitrary Power that might better have emanated from Greek or Norse theology.
I prefer to consider my life to be subject to Original Blessing - to do with what I'm able and willing to accomplish, inside myself and out.
If the author is calling for a return to character then sign me up, but don't tell me I'm starting from an unearned deficit of it. It's unnecessary to the thesis, and suggests ulterior human motivations (control of the flock) in the teaching of it by Organized religion.
I much prefer my 'unorganized' UU approach.
6
Another article about Original Sin, another false understanding of what it is. The whole article is pointless from the beginning because it objects to a doctrine that has never been taught...
1
Lame! Forgive yourself, love yourself, know that everything is ephemeral. Don't be attached to the outcomes of things, just work, just observe, just look calmly into other peoples eyes. Keep a 1/2 smile, give away everything you can, surprise people with kindness, be a beacon. It's hard work - so work hard and the joy follows. Don't seek happiness, don't seek pleasure, but do focus on working outward. So much philosophy, so many philosophers = not enough time outdoors, not enough time looking into other people's eyes. As if we were all naked.
4
With monotheism comes the problem of the existence of evil. Original sin is an attempt to excuse an omnipotent creator from responsibility for the most unpleasant aspects of his creation. From this concept of inherently sinful humanity is drawn justification for endless cruelty.
12
We are not so different from each other and it requires a certain degree of humility to perceive this fact and only when we do are we able to begin to understand our selves and others and only with this understanding can we hope to make life better for all.
3
We all fall short of our moral standards. Through self scrutiny, many of us recognize our failures and try to improve while some of us do not. We all have malicious and violent impulses and motivations. Through self scrutiny, many of us repress our malicious and violent impulses while some of us do not.
Relating more deeply to those of us who do not, may help us gain some deeper understanding of them. However, I'm not sure that our lack of a deeper understanding of those of us who do not is the issue. The real problem is our moral failure to correct the economic, social and political conditions that create those of us who do not.
2
"Intrinsically good / evil"? Were that true, does that not take Free Will away?
Thinking good/ evil thoughts? If we did not have these thoughts, how could we choose between one action or another? If there is no choice, where is free will?
IMO, Good, bad, dualities are arbitrary human constructs, are not absolutes, and depend on one's point of view.
3
Some actions are good, some evil. Free will enables us to choose between the two. Good and evil are universal constructs, emanating from the state of affairs, not from one's point of view.
2
Genesis is just another version of a creation story. All cultures/religions have a creation story of how we came to be on this earth, how the world was formed, etc.
They are just cultural myths and reflect some of the values of a particular culture at a particular time in ancient history. Nothing more.
The interesting part of the creation story of Adam and Eve is that it reflects a patriarchal society that blames the woman for the original wrong doing.
Aside from that type of cultural analysis which affects us to this day,I don't see any point to thinking about God or his intentions, his spitefulness, etc.
It's just a story about the culture's values and anything else is just a waste of time.
6
"The interesting part of the creation story of Adam and Eve is that it reflects a patriarchal society that blames the woman for the original wrong doing."
That's an oversimplification. The man blames the woman. The woman blames the serpent. The serpent doesn't get a say in the blame assignment, however, the Lord God mets out punishment to the serpent, the woman, and the man (now called Adam) -- in that order.
Also note that it is the serpent who introduces the phrase "good and evil".
Source: Genesis 3, New International Version (NIV).
(Multiple Bible translations can be found at biblegateway dot com.)
3
this is a very confused person.
1
Interesting to read a philosopher mucking about in the theology sandbox. Looking forward to the reverse, also, in the future. Nothing like sharing gene pools.
2
Original sin should be renamed as selfish human nature.
‘Sin’ implies a willful act against divine law. Infants can’t make conscious, willful acts contrary to divine laws, but are born with selfish human nature. By calling our condition original sin, the Church made baptism necessary, and further established themselves as the gatekeepers to salvation.
‘Sin’ also carries with it the guilt and shame that adherents to organized religion struggle with. By renaming our condition selfish human nature, we acknowledge traits received from birth through no fault of our own. The unnecessary guilt and shame are gone, but awareness of our weakness remains, and hopefully, the desire to overcome them in a healthy way, with or without the help of organized religion.
7
"What if, by connecting with the... patently evil... we gain some deeper understanding?" We may engage in such introspection. I believe many already do. That's not the problem. The problem is that Donald Trump doesn't. Bertrand Russell wrote in 1933 "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." It doesn't help the world to fill myself with doubt by recognition of my evil. The problem is Donald Trump is evil, because he doesn't think he is.
4
"And if you don’t believe in God at all, or not in that sort of God, the whole line of argument is moot."
Augustine's proposition of original sin is not an argument but an explanation of the human condition. Believer or not, we know our human condition to be messed daily with injustice and suffering. That is not moot.
I think not that Augustine himself portrayed depravity by his notion of original sin. More accurately original sin describes concupiscence or weakness, a fatal flaw, otherwise known as freedom. That is fundamentaly an acknowledgement that the human being is limited in choosing good. He is after all a creature. We see this same limitation not only in our daily lives but also in the grander theater of politics and science.
3
Objections to the religious doctrine of original sin often hinge on the idea that it's absurd - and immoral - to hold one person accountable for the sins of another. Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, not me! What kind of perverse moral system says that I'm to blame, or that I inherit their sin, or that I'm destined for damnation if I don't repent of something I didn't even do?!?
This deeply misunderstands the religious idea at play. (To be fair, tons of religious people have perpetuated the misunderstanding.) It's not that we're all responsible for something done thousands of years ago, but rather that this is the story we tell to help understand why we're all so often tempted to do things that we rationally believe to be wrong. Ms. X thinks theft undermines our whole social order, but give her a self checkout machine and a banana that just won't scan and she might be tempted. Mr. Y believes in personal responsibility, but because he doesn't have $4,000 to spare he pretends it wasn't him who broke the Ming vase. We're all unforgiving sometimes; cruel sometimes; thoughtless; self-serving even when we would condemn that behavior in others. The idea of original sin is not to make you feel horrifically guilty for your every bad urge, but rather to make you feel NORMAL when you have such urges. "Thou shalt not steal," we say, "but it is a part of the human condition that you might sometimes want to, so let's work together to make it less enticing."
1
What? "Even a sort of dignity..."
"There is much to affirm in our damaged selves and in our damaged lives, even a sort of dignity and beauty we share in our imperfect awareness of our own imperfection, and our halting attempts to face it, and ourselves."
Please. Human beings, like all animals on this planet are born in dignity. Original sin presupposes something like perfection which is a ridiculous concept. Life is complex, varies, is ever changing and challenging. Most people strive to life good lives, some don't.
Emerson meant what he said---no apologies for that. We are all capable of good and bad. We make choices as we live our lives and we make mistakes.
The capricious God of original sin was created by man. Who knows why?
1
I believe humans created god for the purpose of power and control. And power corrupts.
6
A minter told me that he frequently asked people to tell him about the god in which they did not believe. After listening, my friend felt justified in saying "I would not want to believe in that God either."
The point being, that times have changed and the concept of original sin expressed in most of these comments - and apparently shared by the editors of this page - has been addressed by modern theologians, such as the late Marcus Borg, especially in his last book, "Convictions." Modern scholarship has come a long way.
1
On the other hand, there is appeal to the logic of Eastern traditions that posit the Law of Karma, and the use of reincarnation to either advance toward the Divine or in the opposite direction, our choice. No underlying presupposed leaning in the sense of an original "sin" required.
4
Sartwell writes, "When I look within, I see certain extreme failings." This begs the fundamental questions: who gets to define what constitutes "failings" and who gets to define the values, standards, and paradigms by which such failings are judged?
Sartwell also writes, "The doctrine of original sin — in religious or secular versions — is an expression of humility...." This is wrong, at least in its religious version. "Original sin" produces a sense of guilt and/or responsibility, whether such is appropriate or not. Consequentially, it can produce a sense of fatalism and passivity, which allows perpetrators of evil off the hook to the extent that they were born "sinful." As well, in the real world the average believer in original sin leaves it to powerful, "knowing" authority figures -- ministers, priests, cult leaders -- to define the implications of original sin.
The person or institution or tradition that defines "sin", "failings", etc. is relevant to any consideration of "good" and "bad" or any other conclusionary statement. Put another way, the paradigms with which one makes these judgements, as well as the origins and "translators" of the paradigms, are relevant to consideration as to both the nature of these issues and the legitimacy of any conclusions drawn, when discussing them.
3
I prefer the Buddhist idea that to live is to suffer, and we can use that suffering to have empathy with others.
I get what the author is saying, but the doctrine of Original Sin has been so widely misunderstood and misused, including by clergy, that only the harsh and unforgiving side shows. After all, do we really have to go to this extreme to recognize that we are all imperfect & should strive to do better?
3
The author says it may be a time for a new Puritanism. We have never gotten rid of the old one, and that's what's gotten us into this mess. Too many people wear their guilt and suffering like a badge of courage and convince others to dwell on their own sinfulness. We are all capable of heinous acts under certain circumstances, but we are not born sinners. The whole idea of original sin is preposterous.
2
What amazes me are the great numbers of intelligent people who accept many of the true and truly wired conclusions of quantum physics yet reject out of hand the inherently flawed nature of humans (whatever you choose to call it). Believing that humans are equally disposed to good or bad is equivalent to believing that a pair dice which always rolls seven are fair.
6
I like your secular version of original sin. It gives us a chance to grow without feeling condemned. Redemption comes from our will to do better and be better.
The problem here is that (nod to H.L. Mencken) one can't have Puritanism without witch-hunts. They're integral to the concept! Actually they're integral to all forms of orthodoxy.
4
Frank Kafka could bring tears of laughter to his small audience and to himself reading aloud from the concluding chapters of Amerika - an exceptional work of his narrative art if only because it brought him, by far, his greatest unalloyed joy. Yet later the same night he also could despise himself mercilessly for his terrible weakness; for wanting even more from life; for so desperately coveting the simple uncomplicated existence others seemed, so effortlessly, to enjoy.
4
In one of Austin's peoms, he says something like, "We must love our crooked neighbor with our crooked heart." ( actually paraphrased) I wish I could remember where I found it.
3
'In one of Austin's peoms, he says something like, "We must love our crooked neighbor with our crooked heart."'
'O stand, stand at the window
As the tears scald and start;
You shall love your crooked neighbour
With your crooked heart.'
"As I Walked Out One Evening" by W.H. Auden.
"( actually paraphrased) I wish I could remember where I found it."
I found the quote by doing a Google search.
2
As long as we put ourselves as the center of the Universe, that we would become as "God," that is the original sin. The sin is to see ourselves in isolation and disconnected from everyone and everything around us. How much can I get for ME is the "black hole" of sin's material frustration, as it can never be satisfied.
Only when we acknowledge it, accept it as a part of life in this form and on this planet can we deal with it. It doesn't have to define us. No more than our classifications as Homo Sapiens, one classified version of Primate animal is our sole definition either. We are more than either of these.
The story goes of two wolves. One is kind, considerate, a friend. The other is the wolf of all the terrible things, destructions, and ruin. The child is told that each can grow. "But which will grow up with us?" she asks. "The one you feed."
5
Even as an atheist (having grown up in a very religious family), I actually thought original sin should have been a great equalizer. But it just never seemed to work that way.
The Bible clearly rejects the idea that anyone is going to heaven for their good behavior and establishes that only God's blanket amnesty keeps anyone from the eternal flames. But at some point, too many people have come to believe that their sins are somehow less damning (meant literally) than the sins of others; that some people "deserve" to go to hell and certain righteous others do not.
How anyone could read a book like the Bible and conclude that they had any authority to judge sins (as opposed to secular "crimes") is baffling. How many times does it explain there is no merit-based admission into heaven? Surely, dozens at least! Perhaps the most explicit is in Romans 3:10 (emphasis added): "There is NO ONE righteous, NOT EVEN ONE." Full stop. This is in addition to the well-known commandment and express threat from Jesus Christ himself in Matthew 7:2: "Judge not, LEST YE BE JUDGED." Comparing the amount of time Jesus spent rebuking the hypocrisy of religious leaders instead of smiting the sinners they looked down upon is interesting.
Ironically, Christianity's transition from underground faith to organized religion seems to have warped the idea of original sin into more of a rhetorical tool to be applied to others than something humbling. In that sense, it may indeed be unhelpful.
6
If you look at the world scene and DON'T see unlimited depravity, I preay that you are never in charge of anything, including a family or classroom.
God isn't vengeful but simply won't settle for our dragging our depraved world culture and habits into His Heaven. Were it your own heaven, I bet you'd have strict standards of what gor brought in there, too.
This is why I was tickled to see Meghan bring in a black pastor Saturday at the wedding. How else could you ever imagine George Clooney sitting and listening to a sermon?
2
I think these musings of the original sin, the inherent imperfection of human nature, is not directed at those who have a latent mass murderer lurking in their soul, but rather it is for the people who seek to find blame for those that cause these mass murders. It's not me, it's not the victims, it's the NRA, it's the "crooked politicians" and they should be punished.
Ralph Waldo Emerson was a Unitarian. They generally don't believe in Jesus, who died and was nailed to a cross for our sins, etc. Such a violent image that is supposed to comfort and reassure people. Unitarians believe in the inherent worth and dignity of all men (women too) and if you actually believe that you will recognize that we are all fallible, but not that we should be punished or will burn in hell. Unitarians, most of them, consider that everyone will receive the grace of God when they transcend to a better place. There is no hell for sinners. Everyone can receive redemption.
There is no Rapture where the righteous are saved and the unfaithful remain to exist in eternal damnation. There is no purgatory, or circles of Hell as illustrated by Dore.
People are not judged for being human. That's the theory anyway.
2
The doctrine of original sin is not an "expression of humility". The biblical story that gives rise to the concept of original sin is about relationships. When humanity decided to strike out on its own by disobeying god, the relationship to a loving creator was severed. From that point forward the story is about the efforts of that creator to build a pathway back to a relationship, and the inability of humanity to respond properly to divine grace.
The angel and the flaming sword guard the way back into Eden. We cannot return to our origins; we cannot un-ring the bell. We are broken creatures in a broken world, with no means of mending either. The story is intended to alert us to our precarious situation and prompt us to respond favorably to grace and to our fellow fallible wanderers.
3
Humanity indeed disobeyed God. Therein lies humanity. When we disobeyed God, we chose free will. When we disobeyed God, we became human.
Notice that we don't need God to have arrived at the same state of affairs. We may simply be what we are, no disobedience required.
To echo another post here, God is a perfect circle, which in the actual tangible world does not exist. A perfect circle is a human idealization, and is not God the same thing?
1
Read Hobbes.
1
inherent depravity would justify absolute gun control. and condoms.
1
Rarely do I get to read such ivory-tower tripe.
"The doctrine of original sin — in religious or secular versions — is an expression of humility, an expression of a resolution to face our own imperfections."
Not it's not!!
Original Sin is the hook religion sticks down every child's throat. Religion wants you to swallow their Big Lie and believe you were born bad, on faith, because they say so.
The goal is to convince you that you're in debt to them and so they own you.
Once they've got you on the Lie, they pile it on - you'll go to Hell (the stick) if you don't do as we say and only Religion can Save you (the carrot).
Once you Believe and have Faith, they have their way with you. You'll even start proselytizing for them.
Only a mush-brained philosopher could consider the "Doctrine" of Original Sin as worthy of serious thought. It is an icon of control designed to program minds into obeying a global secular organization (the Church) whose goal is worldwide mind control.
Religion is as secular as it gets. Its a Big Lie. Don't let them get you.
4
The reality of original sin (or imperfection, if you prefer) arises from the instinct to survive. We live in a dangerous world, menaced by natural forces indifferent to our welfare and by other members of our species who may regard us as competitors for the scarce resources humans need in order to thrive. An individual whose behavior consistently followed the Golden Rule would eventually encounter someone who would mercilessly exploit him. Survival in an imperfect world, unfortunately, requires a certain degree of selfishness.
Our shortcomings stem also from our passion to excel, to achieve something notable. Creative people frequently measure the quality of what they produce through comparison with the work of rivals, as measured by public acclaim and awards. From this perspective, one's own success requires the failure and disappointment of others.
Both of these examples involve side effects of essentially healthy attitudes. Survival of the individual contributes to the welfare of the species, and the creative impulse serves as the main source of improvements in our way of life. The dilemma we face centers on how to discipline these passions in such a way that our own happiness does not interfere with the well-being of others.
The ability to lead a constructive life requires a recognition that, while we cannot perfectly achieve this balance between our own needs and those of others, we can always improve. While imperfect, we do not deserve divine punishment.
2
Sorry but I loathe the very premise of this column. A secularized variant of the religious doctrine of original sin. What an awful idea. I don’t know who the author is trying to reach in his address, but speaking for myself and the scores of friends and neighbors who have taken lifetimes to even partially disabuse ourselves of the heinously destructive notion that we are flawed and damaged human beings, I take offense. We are not born flawed or damaged or sinful either in a secular or religious sense. We are simply born human. And I understand that the author is merely offering that we try on his suggestion as a construct. To which I say again: what an awful idea.
4
Sounds like a load to me. So, we're supposed to invoke an arbitrary, secular construct of damaged goods to motivate us to be better people and keep us humble? Sounds like contrived, social-engineering to me. Furthermore, anything secular shouldn't hinge on metaphysical notions of bad or damaged. Even if we tied Natural Law to our scientific laws of nature, like evolution by natural selection, we would be hard pressed to conclude that there was an adaptive (and heritable) advantage to being fundamentally bad. As I understand it, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, etc. (which means most of humanity), have little use for original sin. I guess they find it quaint superstition when it pops up in our movies. I hope we won't need 1000 years to drop it....
3
Practically every deeply religious person I have ever met was quick to chide those who disagree with them on their presumed lack of humility. What they basically believed about agnostic or unreligious people is that they were ruled by pride and arrogance--that in fact they were rebelling against God.
And there the conservation ended most every time.
But what if agnostic or unreligious people had no more pride or arrogance than any other people you could meet? What if some of them were DEEPLY AWARE of their own flaws? their own misdeeds? What if they had learned a moral sensibility through other experiences and other teachers and were painfully aware that they often didn't measure up to that moral sensibility--or compass, or whatever you want to call it?
In another time, perhaps a person like Professor Sartwell would only be asking the majority of believing persons to not make assumptions and judgements about his beliefs and values simply because he could not in good conscience believed as they believed. That's what I would assume, anyway, because underneath this piece, I think that's what HE'S trying to do for believing Christians.
2
This is absolutely spot on and I can see how this is manifested in our world today many times by those of Christian belief who should know better. The problem is that “evil” is the result of individuals who refuse to examine themselves and acknowledge/deal with their own faults. Psychology calls it projection and when I listen to Trump and his followers it’s so obvious that what they accuse others of is what they are doing. Instead of dealing with themselves they scapegoat others with their faults. Maybe this perverted Christianity is part of it, being forgiven and then assuming they’re perfect. Anyone who is honest with themselves will agree with this op ed.
1
America’s original sins are axiomatic: slavery and genocide, neither of which has been addressed in any meaningful way. In fact, both are now paraded before us aymbols of
1
The concept of original sin is one way to explain the need for the Christian Messiah (very different from the Jewish concept of Messiah, but that's another subject). However, in developing the concept, the meaning of the original story was radically limited. The Jewish approach takes the puzzling story and questions both meaning and missing pieces.
That original story is short--the third chapter of Genesis. In summary, it goes like this:
God tells Adam to stay away from the fruit of the tree of good and evil or he will die. When Eve is created, Adam passed the information to her. Then the serpent leads her to eat from the tree. She convinces Adam to eat as well. God questions them. First they lie. Then they play the blame game. Then God gets angry and kicks them out of the garden.
I take the story in it's mythic, metaphorical sense. Its power lies in the questions it raises:
What was the actual sin? Disobedience? Lying? Failing to take responsibility for one's behavior? Falling in with bad company?
Or perhaps it's about the life course. Were Adam and Eve simply children growing out of their life in the garden of childhood into adulthood? If one thinks of them as teenagers, the story reads very differently.
What about the characters? Were any of them, including God, free of error?
I would suggest that the approach of raising moral issues through questioning bears more fruit for our lives than the approach of interpreting the story through the lens of original sin.
6
I put two comments, none insulting or anything and I don't see them listed at all!
2
This kind of self loathing is unheard of in Buddhism. Where the very fact that we have a human birth, is a matter of celebration considering there are zillion more living organisms besides humans. Also in the eastern traditions it is well established that our true nature or Buddha nature, is one of peace fulfillment contentment and well being. We each have within us deep down this peace which is a kind of stillness accessible to each and everyone. From birth we begin to condition ourselves by identifying with a gender or race or national identity. As we grow we hold on to this identity and strengthen it. Until such time as some ego shattering episode occurs. Our own suffering and that of others are portals to achieve this shift of ego dissolution, should we be willing to listen.
In Buddhism there are many techniques available to get rid of negative emotions with the clear understanding that for every negative emotion there is a counteracting and counterbalancing positive emotion.
Once we are able to access our true nature we find peace and we establish ourselves in that peace. Knowing fully well that each human is capable of achieving this peace we suspend judgement of others and in fact we are filled with empathy for their helplessness or stupidity.
1
Can educated people once and for all please do some research and discover and then admit that the Puritans called themselves Puritans not because they were against sex, drugs, and rock and roll but rather because they wanted to purify the Anglican/Episcopalian church of the Roman Catholic "heresies" that Henry VIII left in it when he "broke" with Rome over the Pope's refusal to let him divorce?
Now you may have issues with their viewing those 1000 years of accumulated Roman Catholic doctrines which did not comport with the actual theology to be found in the New Testament as "impure". Feel free to turn up your nose against them as narrow minded theocrats (they were) who did not allow freedom of conscience even to the most ardently pure radicals (they didn't).
Yet I have a book of primary sources around here somewhere from a Colonial American History course I took back in college that I can't find and I can't remember the name of the editor but it was full of documentation that even good Puritan wives often wanted "more" from their husbands than they were getting. A bit of googling found this PDF if you'd like to begin looking for yourself http://www.austincc.edu/jdikes/Sex%20Ways%20ALL.pdf
All that said we need to look at our carbon footprints-- 10% from tourism? Yes. And eating sea food is killing the seas. That hard wood floor and redwood deck? Tsk, tsk. Poverty is everywhere increasing yet every liberal I know is doing quite well, with hardly a real care in the world.
1
It's unfortunate that Prof. Sartwell felt the need to keep the "original sin" label (perhaps as an attention-grabbing entree), for it completely undercuts the positive bulk of his message.
The ascribing of "sin" is contemptuous - it invokes dogma and authority, the authority's wrath, and concomitant guilt and shame. And it is more elementally an imposition of power, of superiority, to which one must submit. That toxic relationship is inherently corrosive and a dealbreaker of legitimate and authentic spirituality.
The Vedanta has it better: "There is no sin, only error. And the greatest error is to consider ourselves as weak." - Vivekenanda
Acknowledging our primitive aspects, our positives and negatives, our fears, reactions and impulses, and seeing we are complex and hardly completely knowable, is the first step to genuine acceptance - I don't mean rationalization - of ourselves and others. From that position of love and compassion we can grow, and help others grow, in finding awareness, balance, self-regulation, stability and kindness.
1
What he's talking about as secular original sin is totally unrelated to religious original sin. His secular original thing arises from things we do in life; we aren't born with it. We have control over how much of it we accumulate and what we do to remediate. It does not involve intercession by God, in some random way. It does not depend upon what faith we believe in. It has nothing to do with pre-determination regarding God's forgiveness or church confession. It is about doing one's best to live a good life, which makes the title rather odd. Augustine had a great love of and connection with his God -- with fellow humans, not so much.
1
I believe in the original sin as much as I believe in Harry Potter (but to be fair, the latter is a lot more creative!).
My point: sure any story can be about human nature, relations, and struggles. What’s essential is to take a story as a story, not a dogma!
3
Oh, god, enough with the good and bad! We are creatures with multiple emotional systems, each designed for different paradigmatic situations, and each, in humans, filtered through our individual genetic endowments, personal histories, culture, and signals from our current surroundings. No human being alive could suspend any part of this at will for any substantial length of time. We need to quit beating ourselves up and then strive for slower, more balanced, better informed views – if circumstances permit.
3
Paul, the Paul of saint fame, was a misogynist who happily tagged Eve as a second-class evil person and who decreed — among many many many other things — he had an opinion about everything — "in pain and sorrow shalt thou bring forth children", thus condemning women to anesthetic-free childbirth for a very long time. In my experience, the opinings of Paul and male philosophers should be ignored.
1
Original Sin is a political construct, part of a broad coercion enabling a small group of people, the clergy, to control an ignorant and superstitious populous. Nothing more. Just like the ubiquitous image of the Sacrifice of Isaac, Original Sin uses fear to manipulate impressionable believers.
3
I think perhaps the phrase “original sin” carries too much cultural baggage to be all that useful. One major problem with the concept, historically speaking, is that it fails to distinguish between thoughts/impulses/fantasies and actions. For example, if I as a married man see a beautiful woman and fantasize about having sex with her but do not act on my fantasy, have I “sinned”? I think not. To answer in the affirmative is to fundamentally reject my nature as a sexual animal; in this direction lies hatred of the body and “impure thoughts,” the psychological sickness that haunted Paul of the New Testament and has haunted much of Christian thought for two millennia.
I agree that we need to take the human potential for evil seriously. However, there are problems with insisting on either innate depravity or innate innocence. I would argue for moral realism, a recognition that people have the potential--a key term--to act in ways that are both evil and good. The strength of the notion of original sin is that it recognizes the former, yet it’s fundamentally too simplistic a concept to do justice to the complexity of real human beings.
1
The concept of "original sin" predates the scientific world and carries no moral suasion. Sins, real or imagined, of one's ancestors are not inheritable. Since everyone today knows that from high school biology, why does the phrase still merit any respect?
Our species successfully competed for and won its place in nature over several hundred thousand years, and managed to spread over and prosper in nearly every latitude and clime. Were these people "sinful?" And if so, in what way, exactly?
Sin is a moral construct, and morality is a very flexible notion, as the most cursory study of humanity shows. (Of course, we can only read about the last 3-4,000 years out of our 200,000-year history.) What is sinful in one society, at one point in time, may be exalted in another. Consider this simple question: how did humanity spring from Adam and Eve (if one believes such nonsense)? Well, incest sure would have been helpful; indeed, it would have been essential in the early going. When, therefore, did incest become a bad word? Answer that and you see how there are no "fixed" moral principles whatsoever.
It has been said that civilization is 12 missed meals away from chaos. Our modern-day "morality" presumes an orderly society, with plenty of food and shelter, if only one applies oneself and, of course, follows the rules. In a world with less food than mouths, the "nice" guy would indeed finish last. And his children would die first.
2
as long as so called "Christians" keep supporting Trump, I will continuity to find their pretend piety a source of much amusement
3
There is no god, and consequently there are no sins— only crimes, misdemeanors and violations of laws and rules made by men and women. It is time to rid mankind of this masochistic original sin delusion.
4
There is no God, but there is a state of affairs that preceeds crimes and rules made by humans.
If that is not the case, all is relative, and there is no universal moral law. All is permitted.
Is all permitted?
1
Original sin is the inherited stain that we are born with because we came from Adam, who chose to get knowledge from the fruit that God deliberately dangled in front of him. It is hard to even discuss original sin without religion. We make decisions about how to behave every day. We may consider choices which may be selfish or harmful versus those that help us or others. This is a logical choice set to pick from, the consideration by itself is not inherently good or bad. For a civilization to succeed, more of those choices must be good and beneficial. One hopes that most of us feel better when we choose this path. I don't think we are sinful because these choices are before us and are considered, which, no doubt, would make most of us bad. It is not the consideration or the potential which makes us bad. Rather the goodness comes from understanding the consequence of the path and choosing that road which we hope will make the world a little better than it was before.
If you need a new theory of morality (and we do), look no further than evolution. It's how everything came about.
The Science of Good and Evil - by Michael Shermer.
1
How about "original good"?
Rather than focusing on what is evil within us, focus on what is good and noble within us.
Monotheism requires evil. Why else worship the single sky god? Why not instead reject that necessity of religion and instead encourage human goodness?
5
God gave Adam and Eve the gift of life and the gift of paradise simultaneously. Yet, they fumbled the ball. They let the gift of paradise slip through their fingers. But their "butterfingers" was not unique. Lucifer let the gift of paradise slip through his fingers. The gaggle of angels who follow Lucifer also let it slip. So did the prodigal son. The original sin - the problem in need of a solution - that presented itself to God was how to get us to keep the gift of paradise when it is delivered to us without turning paradise into a prison, God into our warden and us into prisoners. God's solution was to let us stew in the Valley of Tears like pickles in a barrel of brine. God lets us put our fingers in the flame to learn for ourselves that the fire is hot. The prodigal son is never going back to the pig sty. Neither are we. When the gift of paradise is delivered to us, the children of Adam and Eve, we kill keep it. We will not fumble the ball. Unlike Adam and Eve who had no experience in the Valley of Tears on that fateful day that the serpent told them that they would become gods without God in the Valley of Tears (Genesis 3:3), we have a lifetime of experience in it. Our lifetime of experience in the Valley of Tears gives us the right data with which to make the right decision. The right data tells us to live our lives with God in paradise rather than without him in the Valley of Tears.
1
As someone who has spent years working with offenders , it is clear that bad circumstances contribute to a lot of antisocial behavior, but there is a world of difference between sexual predators, serial con artists (MAGA!) and school shooters and the run-of-the-mill law breaker. It is difference that renders moral philosophy inadequate and theology laughable- those are for the rest of us but don't equate lack of absolute knowledge or the possession of ordinary selfishness with the truly antisocial. McCain was crooked in the S and L deal, but Trump always crooked. That is a difference.
"...the whole line of argument is moot."
We are animals. We may think we are higher evolved. In some ways yes. Base, we are driven by animalistic needs and wants.
The original sin (grift) was inventing a deity to wield as a cudgel and daddy figure. Forever lording over us ideals we cannot achieve and truth be told aren't supposed to. Cause then the grift ends.
This Op-Ed reads like a stoned think piece, with the commenters passing the joint around and the subsequent deep thoughts that follow.
There are all kinds of reasons why some very brilliant theologians talk about the fall of man, and with good reason, in my book, but it doesn't take religion to teach us the core of this doctrine. Read Thomas Hobbes, Freud, and some of Sartre's repulsive monitions and musings. My own re-education in the doctrine was helped greatly along at a high school, when one of my students told me, bluntly, "Mr. Lee, quit trying to be nice to us. We're not nice people."
I agreed, and, at length, was forced to get pretty tough with some of his buddies. At length, some of them developed a degree of respect for me. That sufficed for confession and sentimentality about love, but it worked. On a much, much larger scale, the U.S. and other pampered nations will someday learn some very hard lessons as the world reacts to the arrogance and violence of our power. It's an iron, law, folks. If there is no God to comprehend it, there should be. If in fact God is merciful in Christ, as I honestly try to believe he is, we American Christians nonetheless have some very hard lessons of our own to learn. As usual, it won't be by any means all the guilty parties who pay the price. Some innocents--including Americans yet unborn-- will suffer for who we are and what we have done. That fact is one of reasons I still try to believe in Christ's mercy, because to me without that mercy there's no God worth believing in.
1
You missed the whole point of original sin tied to the Garden of Eden (perfect place) spoiled by the female libido. Of course, the physiology and anatomy details were ignored and omitted in the story.
As a feminist who attempted to read the Bible cover to cover as a teenager, I think the story of Genesis is widely misinterpreted. It’s a story about free will and responsibility.
The Garden of Eden was symbolic of God’s guardianship of humans and animals. Proto-humans were simple creatures. Like animals, they could not be held morally responsible.
The Tree of Knowledge was a metaphor for evolution. Humans evolved brains that far surpassed those of animals. They can plan ahead, forsee consequences, know right from wrong. God was not surprised because she created them in her image. She gave them the seed for free will. Eve just had to show God that humans were ready.
The day that Eve demonstrated free will was both terrible and bittersweet for God. Most parents dread the day that their children leave home. But at the same time, it’s a day of realized achievement. Your work is done for the most part.
As God was saying her goodbyes, she warned Eve that life without her protection would be hard. God predicted that men would rule over women for some time.
God tried not to be a helicopter parent. But she saw that the hardest part of being human was the crushing self-doubt and inability to forgive oneself.
So she sent Jesus to Earth. Jesus made us a deal: if he forgave what we did to him on the cross then why don’t we just forgive ourselves and do our best.
It’s a brilliant message. Someone understands human nature.
BTW: You are not a loser.
3
After nearly 500 years of extensive and intensive hard work, and learning much, science confidently insists that we live in a deterministic universe: Cause-and-effect is an iron law; no one and no thing escapes. Nonetheless, most humans today vainly believe that we are special cases: We need not, and do not, obey that universal law. We have free will and make absolutely free choices. We defy physics.
Until the majority of us understand human behavior, we will make little ethical and political progress. Until then, it's like we're playing football on an ice skating rink or bringing a picnic lunch to a hurricane or waving a rainbow flag at a Trump rally. Failure is guaranteed.
Neuroscientists know that we have no free will: A thought or urge appears in our brain's hardware before we quickly get the idea that we created that thought. Ask yourself: Do you create your thoughts before you think them? No, they just pop up out of nowhere. Do you plan each word you say before you say it? Or do you just open your mouth and words flow out? Actions are very similar: "I don't know why I did that."
Nonetheless, we must, for society's sake, hold people responsible for their actions. A kleptomaniac may be unable to stop himself, but he can't be allowed to continue his disruptive behavior. Serial murderers, rapists, etc., must be locked away; they are puppets on a string, like us, but they unluckily got the antisocial genes, unlike us: There but for my DNA go I -- a humbling fact.
2
We should note that the Jewish religion, which is where the story of adam and eve came from, does not have a doctrine of original sin. Only Christians have it. That is because for Christians the most important event is Christ's death and resurrection. This colours the way that Christians view the idea of genesis, the whole story has to be reinterpreted to explain why God would allow his only begotten son to die. Paul reasoned that it was to redeem fallen humanity which was originally cursed by adam and eve's disobedience. Without the idea of Christ's act of redemption there is no point in entertaining the idea of original sin. Otherwise the Jews would also hold this view. Therefore the idea of original sin stands or falls with Christian doctrine. To be a nonbeliever and hold to this belief is just plain silly.
4
And what is a "secularized" doctrine of original sin? How does it harmonize with the Western Polyanna take, since Rousseau, of inevitable progress, "arcs of justice bending" inexorably towards the better, etc. And, most importantly, how does man in a secularized regime obtain redemption from original sin, given that the sick are hardly in a position to cure themselves?
3
The Professor's re-interpretation of Original Sin is the precise opposite of the religious concept, which suggests that we are all Born as sinners, and can old begin to help ourselves by embracing the grace and forgiveness of God. It is thoroughly pessimistic, and piously self-serving. Nietzsche spent pretty much his entire brilliant productive life debunking that we can reinvent 'original sin' to effectively work in the modern world. I quote his New Year's Resolution from 1882 as suggesting his alternative:
"For the new year.— I still live, I still think: I still have to live, for I still have to think. Sum, ergo cogito: cogito, ergo sum. Today everybody permits himself the expression of his wish and his dearest thought; hence I, too, shall say what it is that I wish from myself today, and what was the first thought to run across my heart this year— what thought shall be for me the reason, warranty, and sweetness of my life henceforth. I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer."
Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Gay Science
2
I agree with the author that humans are imperfect, but the idea of a "secular version" of original sin seems inherently self-contradictory. The doctrine of original sin is not, in fact, "an expression of humility" as he claims -- it's the idea that humans are so fundamentally bad that supernatural assistance is necessary as a counterweight. Original sin implies that we need a savior; admitting that we are not perfect implies we need humility, self-examination, and self-discipline. Original sin requires an external force to serve as both cause and cure of our errors; recognition that we are not perfect requires internal fortitude and compels us to take full responsibility for our own mistakes. By all means let us be humble and strive to remedy our faults -- but let us not pretend that this worthy goal has anything in common with a concept which tells us we can never succeed.
2
We are perfect in the eyes of God. He does not prefer one to the other, we are all his children. What kind of parent would be partial to one. God lives through each of us, using the multiplicity and diversity of forms to experience everything. All the while he is unaffected unchanging unscarred indestructible, without any beginning or end. We are all sparks off god's own being. We, in our awareness, are able to get in touch with our self aware god within us. No one needs to go anywhere, do anything special, contort oneself in a yogic posture, or go n pilgrimages. In an instant we reach god because he is within us, and in our ignorance we seek him outside at a distance. He knows all our thoughts our secrets even pre thoughts. We don't need a special language Sanskrit or Latin to communicate with him, he is pre language even. Mystics cry God when will you come, please come and rescue us, liberate us, give us salvation. But in truth we are all already home, we never left home, we just have to be aware of the light, the spark within us. It is that simple.
3
What's so good about original sin? For one, it's original. That's not bad in a society that worships covers in every domain.
2
This is a beautiful piece. I have found the doctrine of original sin enormously helpful in understanding myself, my sexual desires, and the world. It both helps things make sense and gives us a way out of our own wrathful, rage-filled selves.
I do not believe, however, that this doctrine can be transferred to a secular belief system. The way out of our limited, sinful nature is through god’s infinite grace — through faith, trust in god, biblical study, obeying the commandments and on and on. It is not enough to simply accept we are flawed.
~
And, if we are flawed but there is not light from god then from whence would goodness come? From Mother Nature, from science, from our own striving? None of these are robust enough concepts.
We all yearn towards worship, of something. Many of the concepts within Christianity are extraordinarily robust and psychologically practical. For instance charity seems in real world application to be a better ideal than “human rights”. Ditto for chastity as opposed to the concepts of “consent” and “respect.”
Concepts like charity and chastity require us to do something all the time, ourselves. Rights, respect, and consent are essentially entitlements. Entitlements can be taken away. No one can take away your capacity to aspire to enact charity and chastity. Now that is empowering!
1
The author says these are ideals we all share: “to be generous, peaceful, energetic in helping others and hesitant to help ourselves at their expense; to take care of the world we inhabit; to not only not kill one another (or even think about it), but to love one another.”
Which of these has our current President appeared to embrace?
1
If the argument is going to be built around Emerson, perhaps we just go the Transcendentalist route. Emerson's essay "Nature" gives us all we need without all of the Puritan claptrap.
1
Some further resources for assessing original sin:
Martin Marty on Max Scheler: "what kind of person am I that I can do such bad things?" not "alas what evil things did my ancestors do?" or "alas what did I do?" https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sightings/repent
Paul Ricoeur coined the word "deconstruction" in a theological context in the late 1950s (years before Jacques Derrida, who was, like Emmanuel Macron, one of his research assistants): to study original sin, "to reflect on its meaning is...to deconstruct the concept, to break down its motivation...to retrieve the arrows of meaning which aim at the kerygma itself...the concept must be destroyed as a concept in order to understand the meaning...this meaning is...no longer juridical knowledge, biological knowledge, or worse yet juridical-biological knowledge concerning some kind of monstrous hereditary guilt; it is rather a rational symbol of what we declare most profoundly in the confession of sins. " (Ricoeur, The Conflict of Interpretations, p. 270)
1
It is hilarious to read the comments of people who seem to argue people should think of themselves as perfect and without flaws and to do otherwise is somehow dark, blighted, guilt-ridden, etc. We have a President who thinks he is without flaw, is he really the model person?
4
Right, shame and guilt-trip people, tar them with "original sin" right out of the box. That disempowerment and sabotage oughta work well - it's been so successful and uplifting for millennia.
That ol' time religion sure sticks hard - keeps popping its head up in the well-indoctrinated, no matter how learned the philosophers become. It appeals to the ego, but funny, it's the ego of the shamer, the guilt-tripper, the one in power. The preacher.
The Vedanta have it closer: "There is no sin, only error. And the greatest error is thinking we are weak." - Vivekenanda
Yes, we are quite primitive and sometimes brutal and violent under the evolved intellectual cognition - with some instinctive cooperative, altruistic behavior (when we feel safe and relaxed) along with a lot of primed fear-response, survival instinct (when we don't). And our gift and responsibility is to navigate, self-regulate and stabilize, find safety within us - for ourselves and those put in our care. Attention. Hard work.
Love and rising above are the route - going the sin-label route is a deadend, and often a car wreck.
2
And then there's Original Blessing: Our inner selves involve (in no particular order):
– awe, delight, amazement (a.k.a., Via Positiva)
– uncertainty, darkness, suffering, letting go (Via Negativa)
– birthing, creativity, passion (Via Creativa)
– justice, healing, celebration (Via Transformativa)
In other words, the Republic of God, in which each of us has a right and a responsibility to participate in creation.
Original sin was not some mystical thing, despite what the church wants to promote, it represents human beings inate ability to do both wonderful and bad things. When we look at someone as a monster, instead of human, we forget we can do similar bad things. One of the better sermons I heard was about Bush and his "Axis of Evil" and the problems with that word, when you declare someone else evil, you are saying in a sense you aren't, and forget the evil you can do in fighting it (for example, the many hundreds of thousands who died, innocent people, in the Iraqi war getting rid of a horrible dictator we had declared evil).
Original sin is having intelligence and self awareness we are capable of bad acts, intentional or otherwise, and if we are aware of that, we will be careful in what we do. We can do harm trying to do good, for example, and that awareness of harm is what is the preventative to what we can do wrong. It is why Trump is so dangerous, he seems not to have any self awareness in terms of his actions, he sees nothing he ever did as wrong, he is willing to label others as evil while ignoring the harm he has or could cause.
3
"There is much to affirm in our damaged selves and in our damaged lives, even a sort of dignity and beauty we share in our imperfect awareness of our own imperfection, and our halting attempts to face it, and ourselves."
This to me is both a source of humility and hope because it is the most eloquent embodiment of evolution and how far we still have to go.
1
Having thought about this really seriously and deeply since reading it my own conclusion is that we are so different that views like this are inevitable. I have never had the inner thoughts or feelings that she apparently has. I would be really surprised if many of my friends had them. My most inner feelings have to do with inability to connect with others rather than to destroy them. If people like this author did have such feelings, I'm glad it's possible for them to admit it. But it is hardly a basis for a general philosophical perspective.
2
We’re just animals, descended from other animals. No better, no worse than any other animal “family”. We try to set up a moral society, make people feel/believe In a certain behavior, but in the end, we’re just animals, driven by urges and needs all animals have. These are more powerful than any other code or philosophy or morality that some people expect everyone else to follow.
1
My mom was a child of the Great Depression, so growing up as I child mom, if she didn't make them herself, used to buy our cloths at stores that only sold flawed seconds at discounted prices. To me and my sister they were just new cloths from the store like all our friends got to wear. No one should be able to tell me they were anything less just because they're miserable wearing what is supposed to be considered perfect firsts. That's something only insecure people do.
2
Sometimes, the philosophy business acts like most other businesses. It takes the simple, and attempts to "add value" by layering needless complexity on the basics.
In the end, the only thing that makes a difference are the choices and actions we take as individuals.
In nearly every questionable personal situation I've found myself in, there's what I want - the selfish choice. And there is the right thing, the fair thing.
I find that by trying to err on the right and fair side most of the time, I sleep extraordinarily well. And the universe usually treats me pretty well enough of the time.
It doesn't take much effort to listen to that voice, either. It really is that simple. There is something to karma.
Despite his victories and wealth, and my disappointments, I think I'm a much happier guy than Donald Trump, for instance.
4
I hope that many fathers, males in general, understand what any female who has strong feelings about raising a decent human being realizes very early: it takes work. Personalities certainly differ early, but kindness, tolerance of others, seeing the others' point of view is not an automatic character trait. One of the rants of modern parenting is to ask your child every day, not what you've done, not what you've seen, but "have you been kind today?" This is going to fail spectacularly, but the parents will bask in a warm glow of their own virtuous deception as to actual human nature. The children will realize sometime in preschool that this does not work in the real world, and their reaction may be fierce. Ignoring reality is so much easier than recognizing, as Mr. Sartwell does, that we need to work on being empathetic, decent, honorable human beings.
2
Very good article with an unfortunate title and slant. It is likely that many will just see the return to a doctrine of Original Sin idea without understanding the what the author is saying.
None of us are born saints or sinners. We make choices that determine how we will live and interact with others. It is self deception to not see the base in even the best of us.
The problem with the doctrine of original sin is that as soon as we believe it, we begin to apply it to others more than to ourselves: exactly what this doctrine would teach us to expect. Jesus said: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." This would imply that we have the capacity to do so. Slandering ourselves and others with this doctrine does not seem an act of love. Also, orthodox Christians have long slandered Buddhists for not using this doctrine. How would we speak if we were to abstain from slander?
An idea: Drop the King James version and look into the original...
1
"Drop the King James version and look into the original..."
I'm not sure if you are serious or not, but most people now are not qualified to read ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
There are several Bible translations that have the express objective of being modern and accurate. "Study Bibles" include footnotes explaining alternative translations and much more. Any library should have a few Bibles. There are also web sites that host multiple Bible translations.
3
Unless you are adept with Western Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, there you are trusting another committee of scholars. Who's to say which committee did the best job?
2
L'o: "Who's to say which committee did the best job?"
That's black-and-white thinking. Translations are always imperfect, so it is a good idea to compare several. Haven't you ever compared translations of a literary work?
1
What a bizarre piece! A new puritanism, even secularized (which I think often manifests itself as fascism) is in no way something I could advocate. Your glib dismissal of "witch trials" as the salient problem with puritanism leaves unaddressed the repression, the darkness, the morbidity and the contempt of inquiry that are the hallmarks of a puritan society. I think we can all support a life of sensible self-restraint without resorting to the sort of attitudes that are the enemy of freedom, be it spiritual or temporal.
3
I think Professor Sartwell may have made a mistake by dredging up "original sin", because it seems to have pushed a lot of buttons for readers, and I think several have missed the point of the essay. Humility is a good thing, and so is empathy, and we could use a dose of each these days. The saying "there but for the grace of god...", and the realization behind it that we are all capable of plenty of stupid, uncharitable, even evil behavior has disappeared, to our collective detriment.
We need to recognize that for good and for ill, people don't always get what they deserve, which on balance for most of us is probably a blessing. We could be in their shoes (or they in ours) were it not for accidents of birth and other strokes of fortune unrelated to personal actions. Recognizing that it extends even to heinous behavior is galling, but probably necessary if we are going to accurately identify societal actions that could ameliorate the frequency and magnitude of such behavior.
I applaud Dr. Sartwell for addressing the issue in such a forthright manner. We would do well to consider it seriously.
2
Even the most secularist comments here seem to still imply that the ultimate nature of humanity is at best flawed and all the way to very dark and possibly capable of Emerson's imagined horrors. This is what makes us" only human" and with no option other than to struggle continuously to suppress our imperfect nature.
Why not redefine the baseline and make Humanity the higher more perfect state we commonly conceive of but probably, in reality, never actually achieve. At least then we can use our skills of reason and knowledge and everything else the species has developed over the millennia to have a shining goal to strive for,( if or when we have the ability to do so). We can stop being "only human" and give our selves the break to be "not human yet".
Obviously nothing changes except perception but sometimes that's all it takes to make a difference
This says pretty much what I've believed, and I am a freethinker (if you want to say, 'secular humanist', 'atheist' or 'agnostic', I won't argue). Once you discard 'Old Nobodaddy' and accept that we are a cousin of both chimpanzees and bonobos, it becomes easier to accept our inherently flawed nature without capitulating to it.
Jesus' teachings, though, create a double bind. On the one hand, he counsels forgiveness. On the other, the man who looks upon a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart. This holds us responsible not only for our actions, which we can control, but for our thoughts and feelings, which ultimately we cannot. You can stop yourself from committing the seven deadly sins, but not from wanting to. The donkey plods forward toward the carrot forever out of reach. And when he refuses to condemn the woman taken in adultery, he doesn't - contra some currently fashionable liberal theologies - intend to say 'you're fine as you are, it's all good, just keep doing what you're doing'. Rather, he says 'go and sin no more'. Today there is a hubbub about the Pope telling a gay man 'God loves you'. Yet there is no departure there from the Church's eminently reasonable distinction between hating the sin and loving the sinner, the recognition that you can't choose your emotions, which are the fruit and expression of original sin - but you can decide whether to act on them. Francis didn't add 'go and sin no more', but it is implicit.
1
Given the world's religious driven wars, sectarian hate, fundamentalist oppression of so many, perhaps we would be better off without any of it. Really.
9
I was an altar boy growing up on Long Island in the 1960s, and was told by our Catholic nun teachers that unbaptized babies were shunted to the cold eternity of Limbo, without any hope of feeling the warmth of God's love. It put me off God forever.
7
The Abrahamic religions seem to be prone to mis interpretation. The clerics, middlemen and women, priests, pastors, mullahs, rabbis, all interpret "god's words" in a mistaken way as though god is someone who is separate from us, over there, out there watching from far far away. The very fact that this mis belief has circulated for thousands of years, shows that humans in their fantasy, have postponed their very own self realization.
2
No need to go back to St. Augustine, Nietzche would suffice.
2
I appreciate the general sentiment, shaped as it is into a meekly derivative appeal for human humility.
But it must be emphasized that "sin" is fundamentally a juridical concept within religious law and behavioral codes, in other words a concept directly linked to principles of transgression, accusation, condemnation, shame, guilt and condign punishment (if not the crass myth of retribution in hell). And really, haven't we had enough of all that by now?
There is no "secular version" or original sin unless it's in the lack of intent that is sometimes exculpatory in criminal law. What's being lost here is the humility that is possible through a liberal education — one that derives humility from Montaigne rather than Moses and from science rather than superstition.
Humility is a transcendental form of self awareness, and nothing breeds humility like experience in old age. To this old man, the humility that humans need most is not in the realm of moral judgments but in a reality check on our excessive religious antagonisms, on our unbridled faith in technology to solve problems, and on our childlike expectation that the planet will supply growing resource needs. There's real hubris, if you're looking for something to remedy.
6
"The doctrine of original sin — in religious or secular versions — is an expression of humility . . ." Yes, and by reformulating the concept for the self-help era, we run the risk of exchanging true humility for the humble brag, as people inevitably take pride in their delving and accounting. If we're after a sublime experience of shared humanity and a lessening of ego pain, then we might do better to embrace a culture of _memento mori_. We can discard the complications of Calvin and hellfire, but contemplating the universal finality of dust is probably better for a sense of peace than more navel gazing, which, for all our virtues, Americans are already too good at.
3
A secular version of Original Sin as I understand it simply recognizes that human nature is intrinsically flawed, in that no one is simply perfectly "good" or even in perfect control of his or her nastier emotions. We all have them.
John Gray explains it well here:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/oct/21/-sp-the-truth-about-evil-jo...
"cruelty and conflict are basic human traits"
Christopher Boehm in Hierarchy in the Forest comes to a similar conclusion, that human beings have conflicting desires for equality, domination, and subordination. That internal conflict drives all societies.
The religious view takes that fact and explains it religiously, but that isn't necessary.
But recognizing the fact means we can discuss what to do about it, whereas simply denying it and claiming we are all born good unless perverted by "society" is delusional, misleading and unhelpful.
1
Original sin is often cited by evangelicals when they "forgive" people who have done heinous things--often, by coincidence, people with whom they have some common cause in the secular world. Witness the many evangelicals who stuck with and defended Roy Moore, or the continued embrace of the Palin family, who at this point are practically poster children for the seven deadly sins. "Humility" sounds like a good thing in the abstract. It isn't always.
6
Yin and yang....up and down....for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction....good and evil are but two sides of the same coin. But remember, there does appear to be a war going on between these two.....and you will eventually have no choice but to choose a side.....choose wisely....
2
There are no sins that are original.
5
This is not merely a moral, personal account of original sin. Societies which reject the fallen nature of mankind in favor of human perfectability inevitably create political and cultural projects that do human civilization grave harm. Not merely Marxism and revolutionary millennialism, but boasts about technology bringing us together to be our best selves often serve only to amplify our worst selves. Original sin doesn't promote guilt in me, or the need to correct others; rather, I find it humbling and and a reminder of human imperfection that compels me to go slowly and always checking in with my deeper motives.
3
Reply to Jack, beautifully put! Original sin and the humility it inspires, I find, can give us respect for tradition and our ancestors. We don’t know everything; we are flawed.
Those familiar with evolutionary theory - and who ponder the traits needed for survival in an often brutally competitive primitive world - might blame Evolution instead of Eve for the concept of Original Sin to describe behaviors that were inherent to humanity long before modern organized religion came on the scene
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brgLZpa8lXw&feature=youtu.be&t=2...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/prehistoric-massacre-ancient-...
It's as if certain religious figures like Jesus came along to teach humanity how to overcome its inbred tendencies by advocating such things as forgiveness and compassion - giving us the Golden Rule and the Parable of the Good Samaritan as examples to follow. Human nature hasn't changed that much over time so perhaps we shouldn't simply dismiss that old-time religion but be open to what we could learn from it.
And as for burning witches, was that the fault of the religion or just one of the many 'workarounds' humans contrived in order to allow their base instincts to rule the day?
2
Original sin, in the religious context, does not appear without a parallel hope of salvation. And, similarly, it arises in the context of a paradise that not only can be restored, but that humanity can recognize with certainty. Where the "original sin" comes in is not following rules. A secular version of original sin is itself the self-same original sin. Everything follows from a contradiction.
1
I heartily agree with the thesis of this article; however, it's heavy on the diagnosis but light on the cure. Humility, self-awareness, salvaging what "good" remains: that's it?
To believe in sin is to believe in an objective standard that defines sin. But what hope is there when sin can only be defined and not forgiven? A secular approach to original sin offers no hope, simply because no ultimate forgiveness can be offered for the sinfulness within.
And this is what makes Jesus’s claims to be a Savior so provocative and divisive. In the words of C.S. Lewis, “Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
Man’s greatest need is not to be better; it is to be forgiven.
49
Excellent comment.
2
Even Christ said "Go and sin no more." Did He really believe it to be even wishfully true?
1
If our greatest need to be forgiven, then let us all try to be more forgiving to each other.
We don't need to take sides about whether Jesus was or was not divine to do that.
10
Cannot believe we are having this conversation again. Humans as Not being able to be perfect. However many people on this planet & we all have different idea of perfection. But the cruxt of perfectability is more about human inability to be modest & have humility. No one pumps us up more than ourselves & inability to face we are wrong about something. Even Jesus Christ has the humility to face his emotional & irrational self at points ,whether in a garden, temple or cross. I personally believe this self effacing ,this humility in Jesus Christ is in essence what is a core reason de etre of being a true follower of Christ. Look at where we are right now, electing an anti-Christ as President. Name a Commandment he hasn't broken? The epitome of eating the apple in the garden of Eden & expecting no repercussions for being so immoral. If the end of the world is nigh, the unborn children of our President will be there to escort him to his throne, in Haedes. Amen to the Old Testament. RIP. PTL New Testament.
1
The only biblical edits worth observing are three of the Ten Commandments, specifically #6 do not murder, #8 do not steal, and #9 do not lie.
The idea of Original Sin is rather abstract whereas the three commandments listed above are very tangible and applicable to nearly every moral question right now.
I personally favor commandment 8 - do not steal - because it can be made expansive, as in: do not steal another person's life, do not steal their money, do not steal away their time with nonsense, do not steal away their innocence and trust.
However, commandment 8 has it's downside: it would put Trump entirely out of business. How would we manage without him?
5
Original Sin. Look, we now live in a world saturated with science and its handmaiden technology. Science is intrinsically skeptical. It is built on observable facts, objective, mathematical logic and compelling proof alone; science has no use for "faith." This necessarily works a hardship on all faith-based religions and "understandings," but especially on the central tent-pole of Christian theology, the concept of "Original Sin." It's like this:
• Adam & Eve = "original sin"
• Science & evolution = no Adam & Eve
• No Adam & Eve = no "original sin"
• No "original sin" = no need for Jesus & his "atonement"
• No Jesus, no atonement = no Christianity, no "forgiveness"
• Q.E.D.
“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” ~ Martin Luther, Table Talks in 1569.
3
If I may counter a few of your points.
Respectfully, you have a poor understanding of what Christian "faith" is. Biblical faith is built on knowledge and reason and has been understood as such for most of Christian history. Peter extols his followers to "always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Pet 3:15), and Jesus commands his followers to love God with all of their "heart, souls, and MIND" (Matt 22:36).
Also, evolution only precludes Adam and Eve's existence if you read Genesis literally, which most Christians historically did not (including Augustine). There are a number of ways both could be compatible. Perhaps Adam and Eve were the first to be imbued with the image, thus still allowing Adam to be the representative of the world (Romans 5:12).
The quote from Martin Luther is problematic for a variety of reasons: he didn't wrote it (it was something attributed to him by his students), and this is coming from the man who famously said at the Diet of Worms "Unless I am convinced by scripture and by plain REASON…I cannot and I will not recant." I encourage a read of this article on the matter: goo.gl/voSNc6
Lastly, the central tentpole of Christianity is not original sin, but the Gospel, which claims Jesus Christ rose from the dead. You seem to be someone who is highly skeptical (as am I, TBH). The Gospel offers the compelling proof that you seek, and I encourage a renewed exploration of its claims.
Scientism is a religion with some horrible texts like scientific racism. The eradication of scientism requires more than its displacement with good science. Hate motivates bad science and good science needs love and humility.
The gospel is fiction. Reason and truth require empirical testing, not rhetoric and dogma.
Check out this NYT review of Jonathan Glover's "Humanity
A Moral History of the Twentieth Century" - which expresses some of the same sentiment but with a slightly different take:
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/g/glover-humanit...
"One of this book's aims is to replace the thin, mechanical psychology of the Enlightenment with something more complex, something closer to reality. A consequence of this is to produce a darker account. But another aim of the book is to defend the Enlightenment hope of a world that is more peaceful and more humane, the hope that by understanding more about ourselves we can do something to create a world with less misery. I have qualified optimism that this hope is well founded. There are more things, darker things, to understand about ourselves than those who share this hope have generally allowed. Yet, although this book contains much that is exceptionally dark, the message is not one of simple pessimism. We need to look hard and clearly at some monsters inside us. But this is part of the project of caging and taming them."
4
original sin must be the monthly rent payments humans are forced to pony up to LIVE. we start with not one wit of knowledge and society for a couple thousand years places sin and guilt on children as the religious leaders tell others how to live and experience life.
lucky for me that i did not have parents that made me embrace this old world superstitious stuff called religion. if cowing humans was the goal, well mission accomplished for far too long. but for us secular humans we live daily with the knowledge that we someday will die.
1
Thank you NYT for publishing yet another article that grossly misunderstands Christian teaching and takes the most severe possible interpretation of original sin as the only one.
The author decries the concept of original sin, and then all but admits to it. He and many commenters agree with Paul, that despite our best efforts we are selfish people who hurt others. That in essence is original sin.
We have an innate sense of justice, that there are consequences (karma anyone?). The biblical God is one of justice but also - and here's the key point - one of mercy, together at the same time. And in the biblical concept, we can't earn that mercy by trying hard or flogging ourselves. It is a gift, but it must be received - which is sometimes very difficult.
So, when we face our own culpability, when we finally admit to ourselves that yes something within me persists in being broken, we tend to have one of 3 reactions.
We try harder, follow the rules and punish wrongdoing (Islam and some sects of Christianity), which is justice without mercy.
We can say "I'm not a bad person, just misunderstood/abused/only human. My bad behavior is perfectly understandable. I get a mulligan. Justice is for Those People, not me" which isn't justice at all. It's permissiveness.
Or we can say "Yes something seems to be broken in me, and my best efforts can't fix it. I deserve the consequences (Karma, justice) but I ask for mercy and receive it (Christianity). This can be life-changing.
6
Except for the "(Christianity)" attribution in your last paragraph, I agree completely. Nicely said.
Being, myself, a follower of science and the natural world and not of any standard current religious persuasion, I am very likely walking in unknown waters here, but I offer the following thoughts.
I agree that the world and it's people are essentially good and that there are always a few driven by personal anger or who knows what. We are not essentially evil needing to be redeemed to be accepted by our favorite "god". What kind of god is that anyway, did it create all of us, good and evil? Yes, of course, if you follow that dogma.
It served the religious powers well to foster a basic belief in our flawed nature as that provided a steady support for the church and it's officers from those who sought their own redemption.
We don't need the lashes given by fear of damnation to be good people, it is so much more productive and enlightened to look for the good in our basic nature while working to address the real causes of our sometimes flawed actions.
Within my capacity, I follow the writer’s discussion on the original sin. ***** So far I understood: 1) The church doctrine and theological stances differ from 2) the secularized conception of the original sin. Then, there is in the end the convergence of 1) and 2) as conclusively as that we see others when seeing ourselves (according to my paraphrase). The furthermore conclusive is that the original sin makes us humble in humility. Prior to those, introspective arguments and motivation analysis come along. ***** I also grasped that acknowledging our evil within, may propel us to bounce back, in transcendal contemplations, to the place before the original sin having been originally implanted(?) to us; for virtue and good life to be pursued by everyone. ***** The difficulty I encountered in this piece is all to be rounded up inclusively, almost on a therapeutical level. Honestly, this is a very nice opinion piece, I think. However, a danger would be its soothing effects in the implication that the intrinsic (= [evil] and virtue are equally in us) vs the extrinsic, nuanced as accidental elements extracting crimes and evil acts harzardously from the intrinsic.
There is another, different ideal that many people believe in -- winning. One important part of this ideal is to hide and deny this ideal in public, either totally or in a limited way. Most people who cheat, for example, are not open about it (our president is unusual in this regard) and profess a desire to win that is limited by law and/or morality. The Catholic Church is one of the most Machiavellian institutions around, and hates Machiavelli because he was honest about the usefulness and maintenance of images of virtue, and the image of virtue is the chief source of the Church's power.
Those who believe in winning are quite happy when discussions of morality limit themselves to individual faults rather than the quest for power. They see the quest for power as natural and inevitable, and anyone who does not believe this is a loser, someone who has disarmed unilaterally. Someone who only pretends to believe this, on the other hand, has adopted a strategy which is often very successful.
The universal acceptance of loving one another is an illusion propagated as camouflage by those who do not accept it. Only a resolute focus on their often-hidden actions will pierce this veil of illusion. The real principles governing humanity are revealed by the fact that a few hundred individuals have half humanity's income and wealth while millions struggle to survive. Those who have this wealth pay others handsomely to justify and/or hide the situation.
1
If a version of original sin can teach us humility, what about those among us who will never acknowledge making a mistake, and refuses to apology when responsible for hurtful,behavior?
Prof Sartwell’s powerful essay calls upon us to exam ourselves, a challenge that entails effort with the hope of improvement. As this comes in the wake of one more school shooting, it would ask of us individually examine our character, both flaws and strengths.
But does this introspection extend to our nation as a whole? And if so, is it transnational?
The reactions to the shootings in Parkland and Santa Fe were almost diametrically opposite—calls for stronger gun control and absolving guns as a culprit. Would a call for self-reflection not also produce a similar reaction?
What about other nations? Trying to find a democratic industrialized state that exhibits the violence that marks gun 38,000 deaths in 2016 or 290 school shootings since Sandy Hook is a fruitless search.
Dr Sartwell’s shout for self examination should be a step we should take, but there will be a large number of Americans who will see this as politicized and not participate. If no other comparable nation shares this dilemma, will we remain an international leader in this violence that shocks our global friends, and perhaps undermines our moralistic international standing?
These are unanswerable questions. It would help the most if we simply and accurately assigned the responsibility for our inability, in almost all cases, to come to terms with the conflict between our baggage and our expectations.
In all cases, it would be far simpler, to admit not being in the least responsible for ourselves. It is a compelling and it is a fiction. We did not make this world. Nor, as a matter of fact, did our neighbors.
God did it. It is to blame. Blame it. In fact, direct your hatred for the pain, suffering and conflict which seems inevitable in life towards it. Far better it than yourself or others. Perhaps this would, at the very least, inform our existence with charity rather than the vindictive vengefulness that so often underlies our existence.
But take your existence seriously. That might help. Might not.
It may be worth noting that Original Sin is a construct that began with Augustine of Hippo. It is neither written "for a peasant audience" as a previous comment claims (Augustine didn't care that much about peasants), nor a notion that was universal in Christianity. The Eastern Church Fathers (who constitute a much larger proportion of early theologians than Latin writers) did not share the construct of Original Sin, as it was understood in the Latin Church. As a result, the Eastern Orthodox tradition never adopted it, but has a sophisticated understanding of the tendency toward the passions and the concomitant spirituality required to address them. It's actually rather more like the notion of the yetzer hara in Judaism than the idea of peccatum originale. Obviously, the comments section on the NYT is not the place to delve into that, but I mention it simply to point out that it is possible to consider what Sartwell has to say here without accepting some of the damaging shame associated with Original Sin.
5
After a lot of years of denying it, i’ve come to terms with the fact that as a default my tendency is to be a bully.
Knowing that, accepting the fact that there is that tendency within me, I can crosscheck myself and act differently.
That I think is the point here.
Until we admit that we are whatever -ist, anf that despite our ideals nobody is totally free from hate, we won’t change our behavior.
I’m a lot happier now that I admit to people that ya, i can be a bully, but i’m working on that. Makes apologizing easier too.
2
... Why describe the human condition as sin? Is it really all that unusual or controversial to recognize that humans have a capacity for a lot of terrible things and that a lot of the terrible stuff that happens occurs at the hands of normal people just like us? Why must we project these bizarre religious overtones to a pretty universal idea? Am I supposed to believe that everyone else just thinks humans are perfect and it's only Christians who have figured out that bad things don't just happen because mustache twirling evil just exists out there as a nebulous entity? I have never been christian and was not raised christian, but since I was a child I have thought about the capacity normal people have to do terrible things and I think it has made me more compassionate and less susceptible to dehumanizing those I disagree with and so forth. And doesn't the ideology of original sin in Christianity generally connect to the idea that ethics should revolve around obeying their religion? Not a very healthy way of looking at things; a lot of the moral failings he brings up comes from people believing that merely obeying their book or their religious leader or their whatever is ethical.
Better to recognize that we all have the capacity for terrible things and wonderful things and not take on the religious baggage. It's easy to focus too much on one or the other.
Still baffled by the idea that recognizing our human flaws and limitations is some sort of great christian revelation. lol
6
The problem with the concept of 'sin' is it sets up a duality of 'right' vs. 'wrong' and, in spite of what Emerson said, we tend to forget the "within me" part and instinctively transfer the 'sin' onto another rather than reflecting on our own cupability. The author's suggestion of using sin as a humanizing force would surely backfire as history provides infinite evidences.
3
While I can appreciate the tenor of the argument, Sartwell loses me in using Puritanism -- or religion of any stripe -- as a model.
Why not advocate simply for basic human decency? Humility, generosity, compassion for others? Acting out of kindness rather than fear? Behaving well without a promise of reward?
I don't understand why a plea for living ethically must invariably be rooted in religious doctrine.
5
The author is trying to re-brand Original Sin, and to me, it's a term and concept steeped in harmful religiosity. We'd all be far better off to banish it and acknowledge simply that we relate to each other through brokenness. I ascribe to Bronte on this:
"We are, and must be, one and all, burdened with faults in this world: but the time will soon come when, I trust, we shall put them off in putting off our corruptible bodies; when debasement and sin will fall from us with this cumbrous frame of flesh, and only the spark of the spirit will remain,--the impalpable principle of light and thought, pure as when it left the Creator to inspire the creature: whence it came it will return; perhaps again to be communicated to some being higher than man--perhaps to pass through gradations of glory, from the pale human soul to brighten to the seraph! Surely it will never, on the contrary, be suffered to degenerate from man to fiend? No; I cannot believe that: I hold another creed: which no one ever taught me, and which I seldom mention; but in which I delight, and to which I cling: for it extends hope to all: it makes Eternity a rest--a mighty home, not a terror and an abyss. Besides, with this creed, I can so clearly distinguish between the criminal and his crime; I can so sincerely forgive the first while I abhor the last: with this creed revenge never worries my heart, degradation never too deeply disgusts me, injustice never crushes me too low: I live in calm, looking to the end."
1
Sartwell: 'Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote, “I have within me the capacity for every crime.” Not long after, the American feminist Voltairine de Cleyre amplified this sentiment.'
A Google books search shows that Emerson never said that. Sartwell appears to be aware that de Cleyre's attribution is wrong, because he says in his book, "Extreme Virtue":
"She [de Cleyre] is attributing this thought to Emerson, though it is an ancient insight and was explored famously by Montaigne." (p. 51)
The OpEd should have made that clear.
1
Everything that is wrong with Western theology and philosophy in one package. The Eastern concept is much more to my liking.
The most important thing to know about us is not that we are flawed beings, but that we are sparks of a divine fire, evolving over eons, from the darkness to the light.
It is called the evolution of consciousness. If we look around us, noting our progress even in our lifetimes, and study history with this concept in mind, we will see a superabundance of evidence that our species is advancing on all fronts.
Enough of this puritanic pessimism. A new age of optimism is waiting to flower.
4
I suppose "original" means flawed from the beginning. Selfishness seems natural, seems built in, and Christians believe that people need to acknowledge this, and accept a comprehensive forgiveness that only God can provide. The New Testament teaches [exemplifies] that if this takes place, God is then able to impart His own nature to assist a person in growth that over time should lead someone closer to His likeness, i.e. restore our original image. The understanding is that one just can't approach a holy God without first acknowledging one's own sin, as said above. God apparently wants us to be closer to Him, and more like Him. Regular recognition of fault and repentance keeps a person aware of weakness, and inability to be completely independent [which may lead directly back into selfishness]. One knows the total forgiveness of God, which - should - lead to the desire to extend love to all. Believers sin, treat others badly at times, of course, everyone is in process - and wolves in sheep's clothing are always around. But knowing God's total forgiveness can be a revolution, profoundly transformating.
"Our basic core of goodness is our true Self. Its center of gravity is God. The acceptance of our basic goodness is a quantum leap in the spiritual journey." Fr. Thomas Keating
"In short, perhaps it’s time for a new Puritanism, though with fewer witch trials this time around."
Fewer witch trials, eh? Dream on, buster. Puritanism, old new, or to come, is always the result of a harsh, judgmental and unyielding outlook on life. And it always carries witch trials with it. Even one is too many. Puritanism is a nasty, philosophical outgrowth of the nasty side of our animal natures. Why not appeal to our better side, rather than our worst?
1
Ah yes, poor banished children of Eve, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears...! Outmoded, disgusting rot! Who imagines that any philosopher can explain life when no one has all the data? One example is the Yahwist writing a creation myth, and producing light and green plants before the sun. I do not hold such imaginings and philosophizing in any degree of contempt; I admire them, and find lessons in the stories of Cain and Abel and of Moses wandering with the Israelites in the desert. My contempt I reserve for those who take incomplete thinking and turn it into dogma in order to control people and the fruits of their labor. Neurobiology and brain anatomy are nearer the truth than some paleolithic dogma of sin.
I did not read all 221 comments, but the dozen or so I've seen testify to the apparent ignorance of another central tenet of Christian doctrine: Baptism cleanses us from Original Sin. Original Sin need not be a lifelong burden. The dark, irremediably pessimistic view of Original Sin and lingering "depravity" offered in Sartwell's essay is distinctively Calvinist, it is not universal to all Christian thought.
5
Interesting but...I recall Reinhold Niebuhr (my mentor when it comes to human imperfection and limited expectations) saying he wished he had spent less time discussing original sin and more time stressing the prophetic tradition of the Old Testament.
If people need the concept of Original Sin to be reminded that humility is a necessity to be a successful adult human, fine. All that is needed really are occasional moments of self-reflection, recognizing that honest, internal grapplings with doubt are seeds for growth.
The thing is...the folks what most need them some Original Sin reminders are those who cling most tightly, arrogantly, and cluelessly to their bibles. I live among them and cannot converse with them about contemporary social and political issues, because they know the answers before the questions are raised. Non-whites are the problem, along with addicts, the unemployed, immigrants, atheists, liberals, the wrong kinds of conservatives, and anyone else who won't blame someone other than white Christians for all problems.
I, like the good professor, will unhappily tell you of my flaws. They are childish and embarrassing. I've been in dark places and emerged because good people reminded me that life is rare and precious. I hate judging some white Christians as I do, but so many common interactions with them make finding wisdom in them seem like a foolish, futile effort. Humility, the desire for personal growth, the recognition of deep flaws in all people: these are denied most vigilantly by those who would say they believe in Original Sin.
Plus, they have committed an act far worse than eating the fruit. They voted for Trump. Clearly they know not the difference between right and wrong.
1
All of Judeo-Christianity, and thus all of human history, boils down to just three and only three ideas:
1) In the beginning, God created a perfect world with perfect people;
2) Satan's deception caused the world and its people to become imperfect.
3) However, someday God will tear the whole thing down and start over...and perhaps get it right this time.
I am glad I stopped believing any of this silly nonsense about original sin and man's domination over the world, including woman, as a young man.
When I realized that Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning..." was false, it meant I no longer had to care about anything that came afterward.
Perhaps I'll make it to Nirvana. But I'd be just as happy to be recycled by earthworms so Mother Nature can reuse the material that I have been borrowing from Her for the last 60+ years.
5
I think the operative word in this column is "perhaps," and hence the whole column is pretty much half baked. There is this vague idea that by exploring the darker sides of ourselves we will get some "insight" into what makes people do evil. Even if that's right, what would be the utility in it? Would it actually help us to prevent bad things from happening, or make ourselves better?
I think the comments show that anybody who writes a philosophy piece for the Times should expect to get a slew of irrelevant comments. Sartwell is taking a religious concept and saying that a secularized version of it would be useful. So all of the venting about the original concept, as it appears in the religious domain, however valid it may be, is kind of beside the point of Sartwell's essay.
Or perhaps I am missing something. If so, that's yet another flaw.
You might want to take a look at David Graeber's Debt: the first 5000 years, in which he argues that the doctrine of original sin, by creating the idea that Adam and all his descendants had to work for a living in order to atone for eating the apple, and that Eve and all her descendants had to submit to Adam, to atone for her sin in inciting him to eat it, served mainly to justify oppression by the powerful. Original sin promotes the idea that we are all born in debt, and must spend our lives working it off.
1
You folks all over thinking original sin--it is pretty simple--either join my club and get baptized or you will go to hell when you die--even if one led a perfect life; even worse was the threat of limbo--baptize your baby real fast because if he/she dies before baptism they will go nowhere so to speak...
This is a very important piece, and I appreciate the NYT for publishing it.
Contrary to many of the comments here, Professor Sartwell is not asking us to feel laden with guilt, or to return to an Old Testament vision of a vengeful God. He is inviting us to return to a timeless understanding of the human condition, which is that we are fallen and imperfectable.
That does not mean we can not improve ourselves or society, but we're never going to finally figure it all out and enter some utopia free of suffering or cruelty, or stupidity. Life, and the human story, is not a physical puzzle to work out. No amount of technology, progress, physical well being, nor the right mix of government programs or services is going to eliminate human evil. We all have the capacity to do horrible, stupid things to one another. Even some of the greatest horrors have been done at the hands of the most well-intentioned humans.
This is a recommendation for personal, societal and programmatic humility, and the wisdom which can grow from that.
122
Beautifully articulated. Thank you.
8
My thanks, as well, for your articulate and powerful perspective.
5
Well said. Sadly, many will dismiss this article due to long held emotional responses to the idea of original sin. They knew how they would respond when they read the title.
5
We are biological organisms, shaped by evolution. We have selfish urges to preserve the individual and cooperative urges to protect the group. The history of our kind is a history of wars, as is the case with our kin, the chimps. This is a gift of Nature (or God if you prefer) to protect us from the worst fate of all -- overpopulation. A problem we can't even discuss.
2
Indeed, but we are neither hyper-organized insects or reptiles without empathy or social commitment. We are challenged by competing desires. The higher brain generates conscience and often conflicts with the lower brain. How we react says a lot about us and our societies.
Even with the nod to a secular version of sin, Sartwell is still traveling in theological territory. The concept of original sin is a cheap device to ensnare the vulnerable in a trap, inculcate guilt and then offer redemption through acceptance of Christ by way confession, loyalty and money. It is a con game as old as the ages.
All of us have some flaws. Recognizing them is step one. Changing them is step two. Religion has provided a "get out of jail free card" for hundreds of millions of "sinners," who escape the hard work of change, merely by feigning hopeless humility in the face of a non-existent higher power.
3
One of the Jewish daily morning prayers includes the line: “Elohai neshama shenatata be t’horah he. Ata b’ratah, ata y’tzartah, ata n’fachtah be,” meaning: “My God, the soul You have given me is pure. You created it, You formed it, and You breathed it into me.” Jewish people do not believe in the Christian concept of original sin; we believe that every soul is born pure, and this prayer is a daily reminder of that belief.
(from a piece by Ann Zivitz Kientz | June 3, 2015 )
Makes more sense to try to remain good than think you are evil.
3
What I like about original sin... is that it points out our complicity in the evils of the world. No one gets to say they are unstained by racism or school shootings or global warming. Grace is a little harder for me to grasp because it seems like it could be a ticket to do whatever one wants, then bathe in grace and come up clean. That this happens is evident in the preposterous perversions and hubris of many who proudly claim to be Christians. I suspect that there are similarities with those who feel relieved of the burden of original sin by rationality or science.
2
Within the practice of the "spirituality of imperfection", we come to see ourselves in "the other" and seemingly for the first time, truly come to see ourselves.
My self-centeredness and hubris compelled me to comment.
This idea of original sin, with a new puritanism, stripped of religious baggage, sounds pretty much just like Confucianism.
Original sin says not just that you are flawed, but that you are guilty. And by the way, there is literally nothing you can do to ever change this fact, that you are flawed and morally culpable, regardless of anything you may do going forward.
What an irresponsible and evil thing to tell any person, but especially children.
1
This is perverse. As a retired hospice chaplain I have often seen that guilt and bad theology, such as original sin, have blighted the lives of too many good people. Some refuse pain remediation or deny their pain because they believe that their suffering is redemptive. Many cannot forgive themselves for errors of the past even though family members have forgiven them or long ago forgot the harsh words or judgmental comments they remember making.
Too many are scrupulous about counting and rehearsing their sins till their last breath, to the great sadness of their families. This idea that people are selfish, prone to lying and ignoring the suffering of others can be so inculcated in people that, at the end-of-life, spiritual advisors, who are working within that person's system of faith, have to work hard, listen deeply, to allow mercy to enter their thoughts.
Only in America are people so sin obsessed and fearful of death. And that ramps up the general, and repressed, fear of death we see. So you get this 'narcissistic treadmill' where people buy, overwork, consume, drink, eat, and exercise to excess. The notion of original sin fuels addictions.
I hope the author here, will go out and work with thousands of patients and meet family members. I think he would come away with a more enlightened--and kinder--version. My job was to 'sit down and shut up' and thus I became a "story listener." Christians need more of the God and not the Judge.
100
I think you may have misread the author's point here. He specifically advises against this sort of fixation on our own moral errors. At the end of the letter, he says: "To allow the self-scrutiny required in this act to turn to self-loathing would be debilitating. But a secularized doctrine of original sin, a chastened self-regard, doesn’t entail consigning ourselves to the flames."
My interpretation is that this recasting of the concept of original sin is intended to see our common humanity with people who have done horrible things in order to have a measured degree of empathy with them. This is about connecting with other people, not punishing ourselves for minor offenses we have committed.
17
I don't believe he was recommending that we wallow in the kind of toxic guilt you're describing, but to see humanity with all of its horrors, within our own selves. That's humility and empathy, not guilt.
20
"... guilt and bad theology, such as original sin, have blighted the lives of too many good people."
"... counting and rehearsing their sins till their last breath ..."
What "bad theology" demands that the dying "count" and "rehearse" "their sins"?
I connect the concept of original sin to the Buddhist truth of desire (and the idea that desire is suffering) on the grounds that both ideas posit us as inescapably flawed. I see this desire as a tangible sense or feeling, easily imagined as a kind of anxiety, but as innocuous and common as hunger. Of course original sin has much theology around it, and I can't begin to draw parallels between that business and Buddhist "theology" (for lack of a better term), but it seems to me a similar idea, albeit a idea underlain by radically different assumptions about and engagements with reality.
1
Sartwell writes, "When I look within, I see certain extreme failings." This begs the fundamental questions: who gets to define what constitutes "failings" and who gets to define the values, standards, and paradigms by which such failings are judged?
Sartwell also writes, "The doctrine of original sin — in religious or secular versions — is an expression of humility...." This is wrong, at least in its religious version. "Original sin" produces a sense of guilt and/or responsibility, whether such is appropriate or not. Consequentially, it can produce a sense of fatalism and passivity, which allows perpetrators of evil off the hook to the extent that they were born "sinful." As well, in the real world the average believer in original sin leaves it to powerful, "knowing" authority figures -- ministers, priests, cult leaders -- to define the implications of original sin.
1
Steve Fankuchen, if by "who gets to" do something you mean how it comes about that they have the power to do it, then what you characterize as fundamental questions are important but not fundamental. The fundamental question is what, if anything, justifies a definition of, or judgment about, right and wrong.
If "who gets to define" something means what entitles them to define it in that way, or justifies them in so defining it, as I think the rest of your post implies, then I agree with you.
1
Mark, thanks for replying. By "who" I was essentially trying to say that the person or institution or tradition that defines "sin", "failings", etc. is relevant to any consideration of "good" and "bad" or any other conclusionary statement.
As to "entitles", that seems to be a separate, even if overlapping, discussion.
Perhaps what I am trying to say is that the paradigms with which one makes these judgements, as well as the origins and "translators" of the paradigms, are relevant to consideration as to both the nature of these issues and the legitimacy of any conclusions drawn, when discussing them.
Most comments here focus on how imperfect we actually are. Mostly the say the doctrine of original sin is too pessimistic. The issue may not vex us if our ambition is only to be morally decent people, but I think Christianity teaches that it is God's ambition for us to know and love him in perfect holiness. "You have made us for yourself," St. Augustine says to God, and he made us for himself, not from vanity, but so that we could love and be loved with God's perfect love. That, I take it, is the Christian hope.
The sting lies in our inability to remake ourselves according to that standard, because sin has become what we are. So we need divine help. Without perfect love we are doomed to fear.
1
I thought we got through all of this with Luther 500 years ago. The guilt drove him to mental distress (anfectungen). Let's move forward.
1
The term "original sin" is so fraught with the trappings of religion that it probably can't escape religion's long shadow. A more general principle to live by is doubt. The legacy of doubt and disputation is rich with success; the scientific revolution and the continually-evolving system of justice are just two examples. Embracing doubt as a means to find truth demands that you be self-critical. Doubt as a principle is much more powerful than any tired, hidebound notion of original sin.
The obvious problem with original sin is not the original part.
It's the sin part, which requires punishment and or forgiveness.
I get that humanoids are not perfect (sheesh), but Christianity's response to this notion is that we must be forgiven for this condition, or else we are forbidden salvation.
But forgiveness is for bad behavior, n'est-ce pas? Must we be forgiven for being born? I don't recall volunteering for that ... blame my parents.
And by the way, I thought we were created by god, in her image.
So if we are less than perfect, seems to me that the one who needs to be forgiven for this is the creator.
A little reasoning lets one see through this obvious attempt at control of the faithful by the church, by way of fear of eternal damnation.
What could be worse?
I think i was in about third grade when i realized the con job.
you're not commenting on original sin, not-Catholic boy - you're spreading the pernicious influence of John Calvin, who specifically stated that only a certain number of believers will go to heaven. the rest of us will seemingly suffer from the absence of the Creator in our afterlife. yeah, that's real Christian and, more to the point, who needs that failed philosophy? we're all sinners, no one's perfect nor better than anyone else.
1
I think you've got it backwards. I think that examining your inner self requires accepting that your faults make you human and that you can be a good person while facing them. The concept of original sin is about feeling worthless and worthy of punishment for the crimes of being you.
This article is a lot of hot air. The root cause of any sin is selfishness. If you look at the summary of the law as pronounced by Jesus, sin boils down to wanting to seek a better deal for yourself at the expense of God or wanting to take advantage of someone else for your own sake. Selfishness is an inherent part of any human being. Just start with infancy. Is there anything more selfish than a baby? A baby has no interest outside his own comfort and happiness. Screw everybody else, I'm going to pitch a fit until I get fed or have my diaper changed. We're all sinners; get used to it.
I am 73, but I still hope that one day I will read something useful written by a philosopher. And yes, I am a card carrying optimist.
1
Try Epictetus.
1
I think of the old parable usually named – "The good wolf and the bad wolf." Essentially, we have a good side and a bad side. Everyone is capable of "evil." Original sin goes one step further and claims we are not only capable but we are prone to act in malevolent ways.
What's interesting is if were to look at human behavior through the lens of a kind of determinism it ought to yield a more gracious and forgiving attitude towards those around us because we are endowed with a "sinful" nature and are unable to shake it off. This, however, does not excuse those who choose to act in malevolent ways. We still have to deter our "sinful" nature and behavior de facto.
Brett Weinstein talks about this idea of metaphorical truths vs. factual truths. If you are not convinced of the Christian story, the concept of a sinful nature could be a metaphorical truth that aids the development and continuation of the human species.
It's a concept, a choice of wording or a term, here an old one, designed to speak to its then audience. It's an attempt to explain the capacity to do evil inherent in ALL of us. It reminds us that even if we hold ourselves "holier than thou", well, we really are not. It is our CHOICE, i.e. that of free will that allows us to overcome or succumb.
2
Humans are the end result of evolution, thus far. Some claim that human evolution ended when humans developed tools. Occasionally, great minds develop a la Galileo, Newton, Einstein and Jesus, all humans, no virgin birth, walking on water, etc. early humans with limited knowledge attributed events to supernatural gods. As we develop knowledge, God’s region shrinks. More and more us accept that belief in the supernatural is merely a fable. I am grateful that the god of the Old Testament is fiction. As the tale goes, he accepted slavery, polygamy, and encouraged genocide. Human morality is not dependent on religion. Hitler was not an atheist. Religion is the original hoax, and the greatest source of human misery, all for nothing. I am a physicist/engineer, and our Cosmos is vast and awesome, and doesn’t need narcissist gods. I am approaching age 82, and wish I could back to you on my final adventure,but that is not likely. I am no saint, but I try to be a compassionate and generous person. I recognize that religion is not all bad, but it is totally lacking in solid evidence. Faith boils down to wishful thinking.
6
Evolution ended for humans when we decided that we must care for the weak instead of letting nature take its course. For those inclined to disagre, I must remind you that Darwin wrote about "natural selection," and humanity subverts evolution by not allowing that natural selection to take place.
We evolved a conscience along with our ability to create tools. Without the conscience, it should be obvious that we would have killed ourselves off a long time ago. Instead, we have developed excellent medical tools which allow intervention to save life, from birth through old age. No doubt this was good for humanity.
The awful part of all this is that we are still trying to kill ourselves off, despite our conscience. I suppose we need to continue to evolve.
1
Original sin means the world has to be bad? Yes! But, this bad? No! We cannot banish natural disasters, old age, disease, and death. So the world is and must be bad. We can prevent wars, epidemics, droughts, and famines, but we are failing to do so. The world's epidemics, wars, droughts and famines are preventable evils that co-exist with a doctrine of original sin. There is no theological warrant for shrugging one's shoulders and referencing "original sin" as an excuse for inactivity when political action could banish so many evils even if not every evil. Christians should get on board.
5
Great, a secular version of guilt, more philosophy guided by emotions rather than reason. There is no original sin, there is just our origin.
How about understanding who we are as humans, how our brains are the ultimate but flawed machine after 4 billion years of evolution? If you don't understand your own biases and weaknesses, you will not be able to transcend them. Evolutionary psychology has the information we need to help us understand ourselves, to grow and learn. But first we need to want to understand.
1
Albert Camus said it all far better, well over half a century ago.
Serendipitously, another recent NYT article addresses these issues from a much different perspective:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/15/magazine/health-issue-my-...
"....unless redeemed by God’s arbitrary grace"
In order to explain Original Sin using the above, doesn't one first have to answer the question "Which god?"
1
Professor Sartwell seems to be talking about human nature, the idea that humans are inherently flawed, and in the Hobbesian perspective selfish, and greedy – the opposite of the rational, moral, Enlightenment perspective of Locke. A reasonable position in my view. But why compound the observable flaw by cloaking it in the atavistic propaganda of religion?
The idea of the “original sin” is a religious weapon of control. As religion is fundamentally about power and who has it – typically males - what better way to make religious followers meek and pliable than to convince them, as the Catholic church does for example, that their souls are singed at birth with a red-hot branding iron of evil that leaves an indelible scar for them to carry for life? Weighted down with this psychological baggage the wounded creature is then entreated to turn for salvation to the very entity – God – that set this process in motion in the first place. What a set-up! It’s analogous to the slave being whipped into submission by the master who tells him “ Trust me - I will take care of you.”
The fiasco is compounded by the fact that the sin is imposed on innocent infants, who open their eyes and take their first breath in a “pre-arranged” corrupted state – the first lash of the whip. To brainwash children into believing such nonsense is nothing less than child abuse – a “sin” we can all agree on.
If ever there was a sinister and cynical tool of behavioral control, it is “original sin.”
3
Original Sin: Adam and Eve were supposed to remain Peter Pans in the Garden of Never-Neverland by not eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
It was a plea for eternal childhood, and plea for absolute obedience. I’ve personally always been glad that they “sinned”, because in reality, they grew up. It’s kind of story about bad parenting for me.
And personally if I had been them, I would have made a bee-line for the second tree, the Tree of Eternal Life, but what do I know. According to the theologians, I’m wallowing the vestiges of Original Sin.
There’s a telling quote from the Hebrew deity Yahweh in that story, something to the effect about Adam after “sin” has been committed: “For he has become like us [Yahweh], for he knows the difference between good and evil. He must be cast from the Garden of Eden before he eats of the Tree of Life and lives for ever.”
This story is also always for me an omniscient deity switching to “Plan B” because suddenly he’s got competition from Adam. (Yahweh never talks to Eve...’cause, well...I guess she was a woman, and all.)
Yet, by definition, omniscient deities don’t have or ever need “Plan Bs”. However, this one did. Apparently an omniscient god winging it.
But this story is essential if you want to have a reason for a “redeemer” later on in the Christian Bible.
What a ridiculous story and a ridiculous editorial.
1
Religion was born out of ignorance of physical laws and requires continued ignorance for its survival.
1
Its true what they say about Christianity.
Either you get licentious Evangelicals lusting after worldly power and cheap sex or you get Misery Christianity, determined to hang sin on everyone and make them suffer.
Worse, you boys have this bizarro habit of hanging all your nastiest inventions on Jesus, the last Christian to ever openly declare that Christianity is a celebration, that God is a loving, even mirthful god, and life is among his most generous gifts.
If you want to live under a cloud of irredeemable sin (unless you send your weekly check to some broadcast gritter or other) that's your business. Its your soul after all.
Count me and mine out. Keep your perversions to yourself.
On the other hand, the gist of what you say makes some sense: we are all "flawed" or "deficient", not who we want to be, or simply human in some way.
If we recognize that, admit it, put in the work to improve ourselves, there's every chance we would wind up being more generous to one another, especially those we fear or misunderstand.
Sounds like God's kingdom on earth in a way, without the man-made baggage of sin and guilt.
The only people I'm certain will never buy such a lighthearted approach to life or to their fellow humans are, of course, the Evangelicals and the Misery Christians.
They can afford to follow your strange prescriptions because each one is dead certain he or she has God's stamp of approval and that everyone else is a damned sinner.
5
Original sin? Yes, but a construct written for a peasant audience.
Today it can be explained as the seven deadly sins; piride, anger, greed, sloth, envy, gluttony, & lust. These character traits are intrinsically in us. It is part of the human condition and can be explained as “I want what I want when I want it and too bad for you if you get in the way.” At his very core, man is selfish, self-centered, fearful, dishonest and inconsiderate.
However, the good news is that there are countering virtues (not necessarily inherent in our nature) which, if practiced regularly and over time, will lessen our proclivity towards our selfishness. These virtues are are humility (not humiliation) kindness, abstinence (or moderation) patience, diligence, charity and chastity (note to church: this does not mean no sex, rather it means to have sex responsibly in the sense of a committed relationship.)
The key here is free will. Our lives are not pre-determined. If they were, we would be nothing more than slaves which we are not.
We get to choose whether we want to be selfish and self-centered or centered to a higher purpose. In my humble opinion, this is what God wants for us, others may not see God here and or don’t believe in God. That’s fine, the argument still holds regarding man’s nature whether you are a believer or not. (And, yes I believe you can still live a good and virtuous life as a non-believer.) I am flawed, but I have options and I am a work in progress.
60
I am a humanist. Please don't speak for nonbelievers in a supernatural being. You have no idea of the ethical core behind humanism, the devotion to the classical ethical virtues, the impulse to live in what Buddhists (also secular) call "right relations" with others. We have reverence, courage, hope, respect, honesty, humility, charity, etc. to cultivate.
All of these "cardinal virtues" are what we set ourselves to cultivate. Virtue ethics goes back to the Ancient Greeks and in the east, to Confucius, many centuries before Judaism and Christianity. I think writers on philosophy, religion need to rely less on Christianity, esp. as the numbers of non-believers grows.
People don't find the old depressing notion of original sin helpful at all. They want some joy in their lives, not despair from some hoary old celibate, white male who lived at a different time and in a culture far different than our own.
4
and what about nonbelieving peasants? are we chopped liver?
The virtues are just as natural as the sins, and whichever we practice, we strengthen.
3
Didnt this just used to be called Having Manners? Minus hell or heaven, this was just Behave. Because you had every instinct to grab from others plates but were taught how to control yourself because we share public space.
We have a president right now who never learned this and consequently acts like a child, blaming all and everyone for his own sins and crimes because he is made of jello on the inside and who is now incapable of self-examination because it is too threatening to his paper thin ego.
8
One pernicious thing about the Original Sin doctrine is that it encourages religious bigotry. Many religious groups claim that they have a monopoly on absolving people of Original Sin, with the implication that anybody outside that group is damned. In the Middle Ages this was used to justify persecution of heretics and religious minorities, lest they "mislead" people and rob them of their salvation. The word "elite" originally meant "the Elect", people who were destined for heaven while the rest of humanity were lost.
5
The issues with "original sin" is an assumption about "origin" - everything begins with "creation" and there is a "Creator" pulling the strings, a Master, a Controller. Sin is also problematic because it is connected to guilt, and guilt demands remorse. The burden of guilt and remorse can become unhealthy mental states, such as self-loathing and destructive thoughts. Thus advocating "a secularized doctrine of original sin" is a confusing and troubling proposition.
Buddhists have a different viewpoint. The Buddha declared upon his enlightenment that "a beginning of life" cannot be found. There is no such thing as the origin. The Buddha also rejected the idea of a Creator. In time-space existence everything is just causal events, one thing leads to another. However, the Buddha noted that all sentient beings carry the delusional concept of "self", it is a form of ignorance, failure to distinguish facts from opinion. The delusional concept of "self" leads to self-interests & self-righteousness, the dual that causes all the troubles in the world.
Americans adores "individualism" and the associated freedom of the individual. Consumerism is a manifestation of "the freedom of desire", the more the merrier. Unchecked freedom such as gun ownership killed more school children in 2018 so far than American military dying in combat. Buddhism chose a different path: delusion about the self should be dissolved, and instead of "freedom OF desire", "freedom FROM desires" is much better.
65
"Be without desire".
1
If you don’t have a self, then you aren’t responsible for anything you do. For that matter, if you don’t have a self, if it’s just an illusion or a social construction, then why on earth should I care what happens to you?
Careful, buddy. Don’t mistake nihilism for wisdom.
2
That isn't what Buddha meant by non-self. In Buddhist teaching, karma is real, and one certainly is responsible for his own actions and inactions. Buddha taught specifically against the type of nihilism you describe. Non-self in Buddhism means simply existence arising from antecedent causes, as opposed to existence independent of causes. This means all phenomena are interrelated through karma, since all actions produce causes which produce effects rippling throughout the universe and time.
I'm grateful that Judaism doesn't have the concept of original sin, the preoccupation with heaven, hell, and eternal damnation, and is focused on how Jews live in the present and in community. I'm mystified by religions that preach focusing on an unproven afterlife. It's up to each of us to make the lives of everyone better now, to strengthen the good in each of us now, and to know that we can and must act now and not wait til we're dead to be OK.Try THE GIFT OF THE JEWS and THE SOURCE to learn more.
4
It may be comforting to look within ourselves and find the madness that infects others but I don't buy it. Sin, original or otherwise, does not exist.
While we may be influenced by those we consider good as well as those who in the same breath we appel evil, by no means do all of us accept either.
At seven years of age, I had to literally imagine the sins I professed to the priest in my first confession; to make up so called venial sins as I had no concept of those referred to as mortal.
It only came to me years later that I was introduced to "sin" at that tender age as the first step in my indoctrination to accept the church and the word of god as my salvation.
Still devout when I read the "good book" unwelcome doubt began to stir until it dawned on me that evil, had entered my consciousness through the teachings to which I was being exposed. I left the Jesuit school I was attending and although my faith stayed for several more years it began to dissolve as a sophomore, a so-called wise fool.
A world of people who approach life with reason as their guide know not to steal, murder, rape and pillage while another world in which belief in the supernatural is their guide have justified all of those actions regardless the "sinful" nature, knowing they can be forgiven
If we are guilty of anything we are guilty of allowing myth to be our guide to provide us with both the excuse to destroy and justification to forgive that destruction, all in the name only of reason.
59
One of the things I like about being an atheist is that I can't sin, since "sin" is defined as going against divine law.
s/
3
I don't believe the entirely of Christian or even Catholic thought demands that we blindly accept a supernatural guide. In fact, going back to at least Aquinas, Catholic theologians have written about the importance of reason and the importance in particular of Aristotle's ethics.
What I'm saying is that even though I'm not a particularly religious person, I don't think it is fair to divide the human race into reason-based vs. supernatural-based beings. Its way too oversimplified, and not all myths serve as destructive forces in the world.
7
Reason in the wrong hands is a guide capable of every bit as much horror as belief in the supernatural. See: Hitler.
To suggest only belief in the supernatural and the ability for salvation can inspire people to commit dreadful acts is folly and, worse, dangerous hubris.
A healthy humility requires the recognition that any of us can act badly, whether we believe solely in Gods or if/then hypotheses.
2
As a non religious person I found it difficult to take this article seriously. It seemed, well, silly, like a discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There are no angels, and there is no original sin. We evolved naturally, like all the other species on our planet. We are what we are. Let's deal with that, and leave the supernatural out of it.
6
Whether we call it Original Sin or not, the fact is we are mere humans, imperfect and, as this article points out, capable of doing evil or perpetrating violence of the worse kind. There is not one amongst us, I would wager, who has not at some time wanted misfortune to befall someone or even many. It could be jealousy, ire, you name it. But this is where that innate goodness and compassion "kicks in" so to speak. We acknowledge our human make up, we forgive ourselves. And most importantly, we do not act on those thoughts. Even Catholicism teaches us that it is not so much the thought but rather the action - or non-action - that determines the sin against human kind.
But I would like to add that so much depends on nurture, so to speak, as well as nature. I can not help but think of all the recent mass killings by young, deranged individuals. What went wrong? Why have they behaved so differently from you and me? That is where the our society for better or worse, has been remiss. We have overlooked what we shouldn't have, whether it be we parents, schools, or the community at large. We are responsible for these Original Sins that have gone awry, and we need to atone for them.
21
You say that there is not one among us who has not at one time wanted misfortune to befall someone. You would wager. Well, you can take my word for it or not, but I cannot remember a single time I wished misfortune to befall another person. Oh, my actions have ended up hurting lots of people: wives, lovers, friends, colleagues, students - not my children, I hope. As an old man, my thoughts are full of horrible errors I have made. But my motive was never to harm another person. The idea is repulsive. Still, I should have known better; there is a connection between acts and unintended consequences. But, in these daily trials I suffer through ("I should have known better; I should not have withdrawn like that; I should have hired the guy - this is my guilt trip for the day, actually), I can't think of a single instance of wanting to hurt someone or wishing misfortune. Either I am deluding my self, or you lose your wager.
1
I'll accept the wager loss with pleasure, for sure! I, too, have unintentionally hurt people during my 73 years of life...call it immaturity, lack of empathy, plain old stupidity, whatever. I still get embarrassed when I think back at those times...
Jews don't view "The Fall" that way and have never believed in universalized inherent sin--just the capacity to commit them, and the soul and brainpower to make decisions. Oh--and we've gotten along that way for several years now.
2
"It’s time for a new Puritanism, though with fewer witch trials this time around." Good luck with that. Both parts: the Puritanism and hoping there'd be fewer witch trials.
I think we've made HUGE progress over the past 1500 years or so by simply acknowledging that man is, first, a flawed being who is, second, capable of great harm and ugliness as well as, third, great love and positive action. And taking the whole concept of "sin" out of it.
It took a long time to tweeze sin OUT of this. I'll fight to the end to keep that from ever creeping back in when we talk about humans, life, and choice.
1
"Original sin", "Adam & Eve", The Garden of Eden". Wow! What a great fairy tale to control those who buy into the so-called "mysteries" of the Christian faith. On the other hand, evolution dispells these mysterious revelations and pronouncements from God as just what they are.......pure bunk.
2
I believe promoting confronting one's own darkness is a valuable suggestion.
The author, however, appears to maintain that the interpretation of the Doctrine of Original Sin is lockstep across Christian denominations. It is not. Interpretation has evolved, especially over the last century, and is much more nuanced than presented here. And, I don't think a secular version would be any better or more useful.
Additionally, many of the atheists commenting here, as is the case with many of the atheists I know, are doing the exact same thing they berate the more conservative members of Christian sects of doing - focusing on the literal story, and ignoring the truth the story is seeking to convey. The need to ridicule and belittle those with whom one disagrees is just as rampant among atheists as it is among believers.
If atheists, on the whole, were, because of their atheism, more generous, caring, loving, open, forgiving, better human beings than their counterparts who believe in a supreme being, people would be flocking to atheism as the solution. Unfortunately, atheists, and theists, are, on the whole, the same - subject to the exact same failings - failings that are inherent in humanity itself. The problem is not belief or non-belief. The problem is that all followers of any belief are flawed human beings.
Perhaps a good starting point for both atheists and theists would be removing the beam from our own eye before ridiculing the speck in the eye of another?
2
Because we each carry the seed for rage and destruction (Original Sin if you will) does not guarantee that we must germinate and grow it. Indeed, most of us “normals” do not and our recognition of those innate negatives does not mean that we must act on them.
That is the key here: people who act out on those negative impulses are by definition not normal because they have not learned how to control those bad inclinations — not just because they might have and recognize them.
Our imperfections do not make us evil. We leave that to our Republican politicians.
1
I recommend leaving to the "progressive" political icons like Stalin and Mao. They were so much more effective than those on the right.
"Adjective lapsarian
(not comparable)
Of or pertaining to the fall of man from innocence, especially to the role of women in that fall."
This word is from a comment by Ignacio Gotz., thanks.
Goddess worshiping societies existed everywhere before patriarchy and the reinvention of God in man's image who "invented" the concept of original sin which among other things was a way to nullify the early hegemony of women in religion and in society.
Lust was one of the first of - the first "sins," felt more keenly by men?) So they must handily blame/nullify the power of women.
Koran re what transpired in the garden -http://www.zwemercenter.com/guide/sin-according-to-muslims/
When he repented, God “turned toward him,” because he is merciful and forgiving (2:37). Moreover, Muslims claim it was God’s plan from the beginning to put Adam and Eve on earth; it was never to leave them in the garden. The garden was only a training ground to reveal his continual need for guidance.
My understanding also was that God planned this whole (non) episode, so humans would have "freewill," to chose or not to chose his "ways," and to function as an arrow to a forgiving God pointing us in the path of righteousness,
In my humble view this is the way for Christians to reconcile the baser aspects of human nature, and appeal to God to forgive them, and through contrition move forward in their lives.
Jesus said "go and sin no more."
So this is what is so good about original sin.
Don't "blame it on Eve."
1
I suppose that the present American lurch toward anti-science, vicious new Christian cults, and alternative fact is a shot in the arm for the puritans (lowercase) among us. Religious and philosophical constructs are topical and serve the fancies of kings, exigencies of economics and other transients. OS is just one of these constructs, astonishingly nutty to some, terribly comforting to others. It is just as manipulative as ever, and just as dangerous to civilization as ever.
2
It's probably worth contemplating why an omnipotent deity would create a man and a woman simultaneously, and then go on to banish said woman to the apochryphal texts, which were selectively edited out of all scriptural iterations to follow.
The "original sin" was Adam raping Lilith. How dare that evil temptress have the physiological capacity to produce offspring.
At this point of the the evolution of my theology, I believe that the original Original Sin -- and the root of all evil -- is shame. That is, the sense that we are not worthy of all things good, that any of us is more or less deserving than the next person.
1
There is no sin, but only malfunction. OS doctrine needs to take its place on the trash heap of failed ideas.
" (A)n expression of humility, an expression of a resolution to face our own imperfections. "
Ok by me. The problem is that Original Sin in the minds of many verges upon predestination, one of the most evil ideas in Western thought. Predestination has been used to justify every form of discrimination imaginable, genocide, slavery, racism, sexism, classism, and all the rest. The term "Sin" in this context needs to be replaced; imperfection would be much better.
1
A "sin" is not just a "flaw", or referring to the fact that like any animal on earth, we're limited in power, so we cannot possibly achieve everything that we'd like to achieve.
And frankly, nobody needs any theology to know that we all make mistakes.
The question that the author here wants to address seems to be: how to best deal with our mistakes and negative emotions?
The good news is that we no longer HAVE to look at theology or philosophy alone to know the answer, as for two decades already, neuroscientists have studied it and obtain very interesting results. And most of them happen to go against cultivating a notion of "original sin".
Studies show, indeed, that the extent to which we are able to behave in a compassionate way towards others, depends DIRECTLY on the extent to which we've cultivated self-compassion.
That means that is has now been proven that in order to become a force of good in other people's lives, you have to learn (= develop an innate skill, through practicing proven techniques) a notion that is totally different from original sin, and is called "self-compassion".
Self-compassion can be defined by looking at yourself in a focused, non-judgmental way, seeing yourself clearly, and loving yourself AS YOU ARE, here and now.
Of course, "love" here is a verb as much as an emotion, and refers to something very specific: seeing the divine inside yourself, being your own best supporter, never imagining to BE bad when you do something bad, etc. ...
1
Human beings can only commit what are called sins - that is evil acts - against one another and to propose that they are evil to begin with would seem to permit them to live up to that designation. In fact this designation was created by the church to gain control over the consciences of human beings whom it proposes to control by making them feel guilty for being born. By designating sex as sinful the church gained the greatest control possible. The notion of Original Sin is the greatest horror perpetrated on human beings because it ruins the joy of being alive; it is a notion with no end of miserable consequences and it ought to be banned.
54
I've also claimed that "original sin" is the greatest hoax perpetrated on human beings. Biblical scholars have discovered that the description in Genesis of Eve eating of the apple and "tempting" Adam to do the same was written into the text centuries later. If we are naturally weak, sinful, and evil, and if we cannot "save" ourselves, then we need help to do that. Enter organized religion that offers the only way to salvation and heaven. But, this is a two-edged sword. By blaming Eve for tempting Adam, it makes women inherently dangerous, so we also must be protected from them. So, sex is designated as sinful, and organized religion dominated by males can take over control of females and decide what is right and proper. The notion of original sin and blaming women for it, is responsible for everything from the inquisiton to the Salem witch trials.
6
I've always thought that "The Fall" from the Garden of Eden represented the evolution of human consciousness. The evolved species in the garden can now make choices, unlike the other animals, who are amoral and without true conscience. Humans "fell" into a higher consciousness, and lost the purity of pure amoral being. Each of us is born with that capacity - the capacity to choose good or evil. As humans we're born with that "Original Sin". Baptism doesn't wipe away that choice, but we baptise with the Living Waters hoping that the new little being will make more God-like choices.
3
Paul Tillich, the great theologian of existentialism, posited an original sin of estrangement, from God, which some may not believe in, and also from each other. Estrangement enables our sins against others (leaving aside the question of "righteousness" or sins against God). In the end, what counts, what is "not-sin" is our acts of compassion, our love for our neighbors ...
2
It does no good to renovate an idea if we fail to understand it in the first place. Mr. Sartwell perpetuates a common modern distortion of original sin (see C.S. Lewis), identifying it with a tendency or potential for wrongdoing in every person. This mistakes the thing itself for its effect. Rather, the idea of original sin is that all human beings sinned along with Adam in that primal act of rebellion against God, and that all are therefore guilty for that sin and for its consequences, which include all the evil, suffering, and death that pervades the cosmos. Original sin is mythical guilt, not fallibility. Furthermore, it is a myth of human origins, as the name implies. It is not simply a thesis about human nature. It is an unfounded and harmful notion that ought to be recognized as such.
7
Being brought up as a conservative Lutheran 70+ years ago I was exposed to the concept of original sin early on. As I have grown older I have pretty much abandoned the idea that there are supernatural forces at work in the universe. Nevertheless, I still attend church regularly albeit in a more liberal but still Lutheran environment. I do this not because I believe in some 500 year old theology but because I do believe there is a fundamental truth about the human condition expressed in this theology. One of these truths is that we are all capable of doing really bad things, that even when we do what we think are good things it can often have bad results, and that there is no way to escape this. However, we also cannot let this fact prevent us from continuing to try to do what is right and to continue to advocate for justice. In Lutheran language, we are continually doing what we should not do and failing to do what we should do. But, we are absolved and freed to continue to try. As Luther said, "Sin boldly." I think what he meant was that we cannot use our failings or unintended consequences as an excuse not to act. We do the best we can knowing that the past is forgiven and the future is open. Just as importantly we recognize this condition as universal and forgive others as we are forgiven. This realization has little or nothing to do with God or theology or religion. It's simply a recognition of the human condition and our limited and finite role in it.
1
I would have to ask what it matters that these thoughts and impulses are within us.
We have instincts both peaceable and warlike, and generous and malign. But, clearly, some of us are better than others, both in what we do (by virtue of self restraint) and, whether by virtue of nature or nurture, how we feel towards others.
In the end, it is not our fantasies, or dark impulses born of our savage past, that matters, but the manner in which we behave. And everything I've seen in life says that some people are better than others.
2
I think yours is one of the few comments that engages with Sartwell's thesis, which boils down to a "perhaps."
All musings about basic good or evil set aside, I don't want to over simplify but I guess I will. I think there is one simple rule to follow - the Golden Rule. The idea that you would treat others as you would like to be treated is much older than Christianity or even Judaism - it can be found in ancient Egyptian writings and those of other ancient cultures. The Golden Rule is easy enough for even a child to understand, but difficult to fulfill every day. Thus, it is always a goal - a light in the darkness - rather than an achievement.
6
The writer might have mentioned and excused the Greek Orthodox community from his thoughtful essay. My Greek Orthodox friends tell me they don’t do Original Sin - that was then, and it’s over. Here and now is where we are. Sounds a lot healthier to me.
2
"Here and now is where we are." If you think of original sin as something done by two original parents, whose guilt and wickedness are somehow passed on to us, you miss the point. Whether Adam and Eve existed or not, every generation in every society somehow afflicts its members with evil shared and passed on. Secular attempts to build an earthly paradise will always fail, and so cynicism is always warranted. But we have to keep on trying. The problem is, each new generation has to start from the beginning and ends up mired in its own original sin.
The secular view of original sin ought to be the acknowledgment of our maladaptive genome for a post hunter-gatherer humanity. Evolution takes time. The once effective tribalism is now destructive. The moral virtues are only partly in our genome.
15
As a good Catholic boy in his tween years, I already had a problem with the Biblical story of original sin, but not for the obvious reasons stated in this column. I loved reptiles, including snakes, and it struck me as depraved that someone long ago made a snake out to be the scapegoat in the Garden of Eden story. Snakes are beautiful animals, superbly adapted to their environment over millions of years.
Ironically, that we have hysterically, disproportionately and undeservedly feared these animals for thousands of years is better evidence for our human frailty than the rest of the ham-handed myth.
8
Cleopatra totally asp'd for it.
Original since has, for many in the conservative religious community, become an excuse of sorts. No one of us can be perfect, but because sins are forgiven transgressions have become accepted, without need to strive for goodness. Personal behavior no longer matter because Jesus died for your sins. This column seems to reinforce that idea that it's more about belief than it is about behavior. Here's a thought - I am a long way from perfect, but what I do matters more than what I profess to believe. Being good sometimes takes effort and sacrifice, but no one died for my sins, and no one else is responsibile for my behavior. Life is about trying to be good, not making excuses for inevitable failure. The day when it becomes about behavior instead of belief cannot come soon enough.
11
I see nothing good in the concept of original sin, either religious or secular, unless it is accompanied by a concept of original saintliness.
I agree with the concept and the realization that the author are suggesting that we accept, but it is incomplete - only half of the insight into human nature needed.
If we all have within us the capacity to commit any crime, we also all have within us the capacity to perform any act of goodness.
Both these realizations are necessary to reach the state of humility that allows us to admit to our own imperfections, but not to succumb, to be defeated by them. To find and nurture the best within ourselves and to see the capacity for goodness in others, even the most hardened of criminals.
They are both necessary to prevent us form dehumanizing others and from failing to bring out the best in ourselves.
5
That's "the author is..." and "from," not "form."
Apologies for the typos!
It's always been my conviction that the "original sin" is simply self awareness. All of this moral mischief began once humans developed a complex inner life.
1
If Eve had not eaten of "the tree of Knowledge" you would not have written this article and I would not have read it. In fact, none of us would have anything to discuss. Rather, we would live in blissful ignorance. Hurray for Original Sin. I hope all my sins are original.
2
Disobedience was the original sin, and has always been the only sin. It's all about submission to authority, kids.
12
"Money is your dictator. Obey your God."
OK, so, the thought here is that we will perhaps "gain some deeper understanding" of why people do horrible things if we look into ourselves and review such things as our fantasy of kicking a person who has been rude to us over the Canadian border. Or perhaps deeper flaws. The understanding of evil requires Verstehen.
So wouldn't one place to test this suggestion be precisely the one that serves as its origin? What is the track record of the doctrine of original sin in providing psychological insight into why people do bad things? Do people who believe in it actually have deeper insight into why people do such things?
1
A man created out of clay and a woman shaped from his rib.
A snake advises the woman not to eat the apple and she ignores the advice. Accordingly we are all on the hook for a lifetime of sin.
Seriously ?
2
If I'm not mistaken, the KJV translation doesn't say anything about Eve being warned. Only Adam got that memo.
My God, this is well said!
1
There is no 'original sin'. It's the ones you do all day that count!
2
Original Sin, the perfect excuse to blame Women. For Everything.
Just saying.
7
The fallacy of original sin is just that, a myth, a canard foisted upon uninitiated gullible types who have so little self-worth they are willing accomplices and complicit in elevating religion to heights is doesn't deserve.
Who came up with this notion of original sin? Someone who obviously is obsessed with control, controlling your behavior through guilt. If I can convince you that you came into this World a sinner, a soiled individual, that, unless you receive these things I call sacraments from an anointed earthly representative of God, then and only then will your soul (whatever that is) be saved, and you will be given a passport to enter another equally astonishing place, heaven.
Really, that's the point of original sin. What reason would someone of Reason ever come up with such a bizarre concept? They wouldn't. Only someone who wanted to exert a power over you would. Who in heaven 's name would do that?
DD
Manhattan
7
I was reared as a Catholic, so Original Sin sat front and center in many places as I grew up. Fortunately, I realized an affinity for Judaism in the third grade. And converted as an adult. There is no original sin in Judaism and the Adam and Eve story is about disobedience, not a fall from grace.
1
What a ridiculous concept in this age of enlightenment. It was obviously invented by the church to extract money out of people. Please read "Enlightenment Now" by Pinker.
6
It's a con job to try and make you dependent on religious "authorities", and to make contributions to their organizations.
6
Religion should be studied as a natural phenomenon. Read Dennet's "Breaking the Spell".
How did the idiotic notion of original sin get started, and why is it persistent, and why did this notion evolve in only a subset (Christianity) of humanity and not in all humanity (this notion does not exist in Hinduism, Bhudism, etc)?
We shouldn't want, need, or desire to morph or normalize the notion of original sin, we need to ditch it. It does not work in any conceivable framework. It is utter nonsense.
4
Maybe the mistake is just the book chosen for reference.
Try a book on physics, if you have a real interest in God.
6
I have a much shorter answer to the question of what is good about original sin:
Nothing.
4
Emerson was't particularly personally humble from what I understand, but his general point was a good one about hellfire being suspect. And please don't bend my comment. Evil exists, whatever its consequences, including hellfire. Sartwell's core point seems to be that it's good to acknowledge personal damage as a precursor to whatever we do. Fair enough.
1
What rubbish. This is all about doctrine and theology. How does that even begin to speak to the question of original (god-created) sin? How is that even knowable. Some people do evil things--evil because they are so defined by social values and norms. To say such conduct is caused or influenced by original sin doesn't advance our understanding one little bit.
2
"Periculosum est credere et non credere"
(It is dangerous to believe as well as to disbelieve) Pascal
"Guilt", "Freedom", "Justice", "Faith" , "God", are big words.
Like Joyce, we too should "fear those big words which make us so unhappy".
Let us change the language game ("sprachspiel")
Instead of "blame", say "love", instead of "it´s their fault", think what you can do different.
Not to have a God, is a God also.
1
No such thing as human Original Sin except in mythology. Unless you want to discuss single cell organisms we evolved from. What sins have those creatures passed on to us.
1
Why the false conflation of addiction or mental illness as crimes in a list containing a shooter, racist, or sexual predator? This is not only ridiculous but harmful, much like any attempt to find value in a consideration of original sin. The author should publish a retraction.
Babies are not born with original sin; they are born with approximately 17% of there neural connections in place. Humans therefore need love and nurture to develop, not the destructive musings of religionists from the past or present.
1
Belief in original sin, like belief in a god, is impossible to understand.
1
The author says "Even so, it is not clear that the preachers of original sin have managed to explain why a benevolent God would create such profoundly flawed creatures as they believe us to be." So when you look for purpose in that it seems you are supposed to run around life with this monkey on your back that will only jump off when you die. Whether the tale is allegorical or factual regardless, that seems kinda stupid, feeling guilty for what other people have done in their lives before you were even born. Live your own life, be moral, ethical, be kind and considerate to others as best you can, leave the playground better than you found it. It's hard to do but you don't need the profession of faith to do it.
2
If there's a common thread to organized religion--including the notion of original sin as part of Christian doctrine--then it is the typically human trait of taking otherwise worthwhile concepts and wrapping them up in obfuscating mythology. The story of Adam and Eve and eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is a perfect example.
If living a just, moral, and ethical life includes having the humility to admit that we all have flaws, why not just say it, then? No need for making up stories about serpents and fallen angels. Years ago I read this interpretation of the concept of "original sin" without the biblical references. It resonated well for me then, and even more so today:
“Somewhere there is an ancient enmity between our daily life and the great work. Help me in saying it, to understand it.”
— Rainer Maria Rilke
29
Someone once said that he loves scripture too much to believe it a literal interpretation. I do not believe Adam and Eve actually lived, but the moral of their story - the metaphor - is deep and powerful. How do we use our free will? The death that God promised was not a physical death. It was a separation from what is good. So, we ask, what is good? How can I help to make things better.
3
"Original sin" is a common thread in organized religion? How many religions have you studied? I work in a church and I never hear the concept even mentioned.
Read Paul's letters and Augustine, then Luther. I am not a Christian, but I know that that's where our concept of "original sin" came from and was given a modern interpretation (by Luther).
This ideology that we are born flawed is both counterproductive AND endemic in our culture.
Mr Sartwell states "When i look within i see certain failings". This statement is the byproduct of his culture. And the culture is massively influenced by the RELIGION. Another culture might have Mr Sartwell saying "When i look within i see certain opportunities".
The ideology of original sin, in addition to the ideology of a judging and condemning god, is the most damning aspect of the Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) persepctive.
I have never understood why people subject themselves to such a negative ideology. Certainly we are capable of better.
10
This observer's take: Mr Sartwell is recommending exactly what the commenter appears to wish him to: "When i look within i see certain opportunities".
I suggest that Christians drop the idea of original sin but this isn't going to happen anytime soon. It is a huge stumbling block, a barrier (there are many) that many people find almost impossible to overcome in their "growth" toward being good Christians.
There are so many complicated twists of logic involving the origin of original sin, the consequences of of original sin (heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo?), the sins qualifying for original sin, etc.
So we are born with original sin. Are we also born with original goodness? How about original inquiry? Or original humor? Original joy, sorrow, whatever. I guess I just don't get it.
How about this: original reason.
2
Orthodox Christianity and every other kind of Christianity other than those influenced by Augustine manage to know, love, and serve God and one another without the doctrine of original sin. Roman Catholicism and the various Protestant denominations are the only strands of Christianity that appear to need this essentially dualist doctrine. Probably a reflection of the distrust of the flesh that we see in Paul and Augustine's inability to shake off his Manichaean roots. For the Orthodox, it suffices that the sacrament of baptism initiates believers into the life of Christ. They reject the the innate wickedness of newborn children that sits at the center of the doctrine of original sin. Humans do not have to be born into wickedness to make choices with evil intent or to inflict harm on one another. Free will - another doctrine that Augustine effectively dismissed - can explain all of the evil in the world. We do not need a dogma that condemns every human being to perdition at birth. God's grace and love transcend our feeble attempts to push our own destructive choices onto an inborn human condition that only blood can wash away. Original sin was a wrong turn in Christianity that most Christian sects avoided. We in the western tradition, however, are stuck with it and with the need to justify a doctrine that is as unnecessary as it is pernicious.
1
The doctrine of original sin is NOT just "an expression of humility, an expression of a resolution to face our own imperfections".
It implies that we today are PUNISHED for a transgression that two people committed thousands of years ago. And the punishment consists of having to suffer, and suffer a lot.
One of those sufferings that every generation now has to live with, are a whole range of negative emotions, starting with being ashamed of your own body, of who you are etc., in other words: self-loathing.
So there's not just a "risk", as Sartwell writes, that IF you accept this doctrine, you'll cultivate self-loathing, as self-loathing is a crucial part of the original sin doctrine in the first place.
This doctrine was never meant to become some kind of therapy for negative emotions, though. It rather explained those emotions as a necessary and inevitable consequence of a transgression of authority by our forefathers.
Fortunately, there have always been alternative doctrines trying to explain the that as limited beings, we often are incapable of achieving our ideals.
The Buddhist self-compassion doctrine, for instance, tells us that love (and self-love) is a SKILL, something you have to develop, as negative emotions are the "default mode" of our brains. To stop the self-loathing, you need to learn (= through various, in the meanwhile scientifically proven techniques) how to accept yourself as you are NOW, and how to see that we all are already perfect...
1
.....accordingly, please enlighten us with your definition of "perfect".
Original sin is an expression of existential guilt, or shame. Many people feel it, although not all. Because it is found in every culture and era, it is probably inherent to our primate nature. That does not mean it has any profound meaning, or that we should take lessons from it.
Sexual inhibition is big part of Christian original sin. I have studied anthropology and history. As far as I know, in every society and era, some people were naturally inhibited. They were ashamed of sex, or afraid of it, at least before they become experienced.
People sometimes think that other societies are less inhibited, but as far as I know that is not the case. Some Europeans imagine that Japanese people traditionally were less inhibited. I know the Japanese language well enough translate books, and I have read a lot about pre-modern and modern Japan. Inhibition was, and remains, as common in Japan as anywhere else. It is not caused by Christianity, because only a few percent of the people there are Christian.
Funny thing is that despite the press 'original sin' gets, virtually no one really believes it. Childhood is known as "a time of innocence." Juvenile sex assault victims are commonly referred to as having had their "innocence" stolen from them.
There's nothing innocent about children, hwoever They have this way of being both adorable and completely vile at the same time. They are selfish and narcissistic creatures given to tantrums when not getting what they want. They are gratuitously mean and manipulative, steal from others and lie with impunity. In short, they look an awful lot like President Trump minus the adorable part.
It takes years of socialization in the virtues of civilization to produce 'goodness,' and it's always at risk of regression. Saints are made over time by fasting, prayer and penitence. We can't all just wake up one morning and be Teresa of the Little Flower. Original sin means sinking to the lowest common denominator; effortlessly surrendering to all my prejudices, passions and resentments. Rejecting it means embracing the effort to become a better person.
2
There is more than one fatal flaw in this piece, but the primary one is dragging “orginal sin” into a discussion where it has no place. The doctrine is nonsensical from the get-go, so if one wants to discuss human behavior, thought processes, instincts and the like in relation to “good” and “bad” societal outcomes, using original sin as a starting point is neither useful nor necessary. The second major weakness is the author’s extrapolating from a highly conditional proposition to a generality. The former is initially expressed as, “Perhaps, if we were witheringly honest, we might see a school shooter within us, or a bully or abuser of the sort that helped create people like that.” Note especially “perhaps” and “we might”, which also entail “perhaps not” and “might not”. An attempt to support this statement is made by quotes from Emerson and Voltairaine de Cleyre, which then lead to the author to assert a virtue of self-loathing to affirm “our damaged selves”. It’s 2018 and we have an enormous amount of highly credible information on the genetic and environmental causes of human thought and behavior. Why it is ignored in favor of original sin and possible psychological variants is should lead any reader to some vigorous head-scratching.
5
On what grounds does Professor Sartwell consider a discussion like this to be valuable or informative when it contains virtually no mention of the validated findings (as always tentative and to the best of our knowledge to date) of sciences, including genetics, evolutionary biology, cognitive psychology, neuroscience and various combinations of all the above, sometimes even admitting a non-scientific discipline like, oh say, philosophy?
I don’t want to be too harsh, for the gist of what he appears to be getting at is fair enough and more or less what the science is suggesting, except its much more muddled and engages in sloppy use of concepts long accepted for 2000 years or more, and still widely accepted by many, but that are no longer relevant.
‘Sin’ and ‘evil’ are judgemental and dubious things defined by religious doctrines, no facts. Even ‘good’ and ‘bad’ can vary, depending on contact. ‘Thou shall not kill’ in most societies with and exception for self-defence in ‘it’s-him-or me’ situations.
The fact is — the consensus among scientists tody is neither that humankind is fundamentally, innately ‘good’ nor ‘innately bad.’ We are not born sinners nor pure noble critters with a blank slate.
What we should be talking about, instead, is our innate capacity to do great good and great evil. It’s not nurtur and not nature, it’s both, and that makes it messy often. But it’s who we are, and wecan learn to control our worst innate impulses.
5
I prefer the eastern idea that what is wrong with humanity is better termed ignorance than sin. The concept of sin implies the breaking of rules or failure to meet certain standards of behavior. Ignorance implies that we just don't know the true nature of the world/universe, and therefore don't act accordingly (sin?). From what I've observed from 64 years of life, I think the idea of mass ignorance to be closer to reality. If we really understood who we are, the impermanence of everything, and the light and dark aspects of the world around us, we would chose to be compassionate and to love. (Yes, I'm an old hippy)
6
THERE IS NO ORIGINAL SIN. The concept was concocted to explain and justify the ridiculous beliefs now present in every society. The human mind has no defense against the introduction of beliefs in society - beliefs that cause the destructive tendencies in humans. We are not born sinful by nature. When we program the human abstract thought process in a computer, we will finally understand the destructive nature of beliefs on human behavior. Until then, our philosophers and preachers will continue to expound on the theory of original sin.
Presently, we cannot program pain, pleasure, or sex into a machine that cannot feel. We can only program our "survival" program into the computer, and opting for original sin, the AI community denies the existence of a survival program directing human thought. Caught in a chicken/egg dilemma, the world cannot see that the human mind is defenseless against the inevitable beliefs that come with society, and that these beliefs create and cause our destructive behavior.
In the near future, we will program our survival program in a computer, and finally we'll have irrefutable proof about the destructive nature of all human beliefs. Until then, however, there will be a race between our total self-destruction and the building and understanding of this model brain that will free us from our self-induced insanity.
See:
RevolutionOfReason.com
TheRogueRevolutionist.com
3
Original sin is a theological doctrine introduced by St. Augustine based on certain bible versus and his knowledge at his time. It may have some religious values to introduce the sacrament of baptism for Christians. Other than it is meaningless and based on our knowledge today the story of Adam and Even cannot be true. They are in no way the first human beings in the world. In fact there is no sin, we are created with certain inherent qualities. We act upon it based on circumstances and whatever we do is the result of the creation. It is not a sin. If we do bad things, that will affect our happiness in this world, so we created laws to affect our actions in this world. So, if we kill against laws, we will be punished by laws. If a soldier kills an enemy, he will be rewarded. God is not going to punish us for doing things destined for us. We cannot do bad or good things to God, the omnipotent.
1
Eve's taking the bite of the apple and sharing it with Adam represents the development of consciousness (and conscience) that separates the human from the animal, hence the necessity to leave the Garden of Eden, the bliss of ignorance and instinct - to a place of uncertainty.
Hopefully, we will move beyond the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and Aristotle's idea of "original sin", in order to better ourselves, as I believe the author hopes. It seems that the major goal of Catholicism is one of instilling fear of everlasting punishment for wrongdoings done while alive in order to keep order. Preying on our fear of death, there is this carrot dangling in front of us that if we lead a particular kind of life, and accept a particular doctrine, we won't really die and cease to exist.
The joy of being alive seems to be lost in all of this.
2
Kazuo Ishiguro in his novel "The Buried Giant" explores through myth and allegory that darkness within us all that lies buried until such time we can no longer deny its existence. Nor can we escape the consequences of what the darkness has caused us to think and do.
That there is a judgement outside ourselves, an indulgence we can buy, a pact we can make with a God or devil, to absolve ourselves of 'original sin' is anathema to me. We know, if we look deep within ourselves what we are guilty of and if we are brave we do this before the desperate last minute death bed conversions.
Contracts made under such circumstances are worthless. We come back diminished and handicapped the next time round, our darkness packed so deep and hard within us, we need to blame, attack, kill, torture, destroy whole peoples, whole cities and countries to assuage the anger that fills us.
No one is exempt and no one is purified and sanctified by any entity, religious or otherwise other than the one within who knows. We ignore that voice at our peril as is evident from the state of the world right now.
1
If emphasis on Original Sin were just about encouraging personal humility, I would be a supporter. But there are profound policy issues that flow from this perception of humanity, and they do not result from new discussions of hellfire and eternal damnation.
Quoting my former congressman J.C. Watts in the wake of the Parkland massacre, Robert Leonard observed that "Democrats think people were born basically good, so when good people did bad things, something in society (in this case, guns) needed to be controlled. Republicans think the fault lies with the person — the perpetrator of the evil. Bad choices result in bad things being done, in part because the perpetrator lacks the moral guidance the Christian faith provides. The reaction to mass shootings highlights this difference. Liberals blame the guns and want to debate gun control. For conservatives, the blame lies with the shooter, not the gun." The answer is to lock up the perpetrator, not remove the instrument of death.
And even after incarceration, Original Sin suggests that because humans are inherently evil, penal rehabilitation is pointless.
These Manichaean perspectives can be seen in most of the other issues that divide Americans: drug and alcohol abuse, crime beyond gun violence and abortion. One side looks for a way to remediate the human condition, the other cynically wants to separate the perpetrator from those who are still inherently evil but better able to control their impulses.
6
Yes. That’s the problem with Republicans. They believe that they and everyone else exist as solitary psyches and personalities detached from the rest of humanity. Like a fish in water, they fail to respect or even realize that they all use the same water and that the school they swim in depends upon the existence of all the others for it to do the work of protection from the world and from other, bigger fish that want to eat them. It is true that some fish in the school will get caught, but not the 100% guarantee of death when a fish travels alone.
Ironically, these Republicans don’t actually have the courage to be the lone, individual person they say they are and instead, they travel in lockstep to the FOX-trot tune of “It’s the Liberals, stupid.” Thus they stand in the way of justice and in opposition to “e pluribus unum.”
1
"Democrats think people were born basically good, so when good people did bad things, something in society (in this case, guns) needed to be controlled."
Really? Democrats have ushered in the greatest amount of government controls the world has ever experienced. Socialists (Democrats) always want more regulation and more control. Witness the USSR, Nazi Germany, NK, PRC, Cuba, Venezuela, and all the other Socialism-embracing nations of world history.
Democrats believe people - and especially businesses - cannot control themselves to act as Democrats want, so they create more government to force people to behave. The evidence abounds around you.
1
KarlosTJ: Those weren't my words; those were one of your own, J. C. Watts. Apparently even some right-wing Republicans occasionally get their facts correct.
Original sin lite? Well reasoned but limited argument herein. Original sin of any kind may be no more than a construct; a component of a narrative to help cope and explain. Darwin, though religious himself, lifted the edge of the tent. If humans are the product of millions of years of evolution, we carry the seeds of darkness and irrationality, honed by the struggle for survival within us. Emerson was right. It is the nature of the beast. Try as we might to invent a narrative to explain what we can't, or are unwilling to accept about ourselves, we cling to such reassurances so that we don't go mad. The genius of this piece is the acknowledgement that we cannot even control the outcome of acts based on our good intentions. Maybe self loathing isn't the way to go. But in a random universe, humility, acceptance, skepticism and the analysis of the results of insatiable experimentation might be more productive.
2
Mention of Darwin reminds me of an odd paradox. Religious groups who believe that people inherit Original Sin think it's degrading to say that people inherit an animal nature (i.e. the theory of evolution). I don't know what the difference is.
1
Does seem to be 2 sides of the same coin. It's the head water of unhealthy guilt based on denial.
Reinhold Niebuhr, whose "Christian realism" has been immensely influential (and who is James Comey's intellectual lodestar), noted that a politics informed by the idea of original sin would be far more successful than one informed by a notion of human perfectibility.
1
Fine, but I see few anywherewho think human perfectability....not even naive techie types far too engrossed inscience fiction drems of AI and chips in our brains. Most of the worry is AI will take over the world, equally naive
Love being unconditional, there can be no condition that could deprive us of love. Nothing we do or could do could ever separate us from God. Therefore, there can be no sin. Mental errors, such as attacking others because of a mistaken belief that we are vulnerable and on our own, horrific though it may sometimes seem to us, are not actually of any consequence. Unity can never devolve into duality in truth.
"Nothing we do or could do could ever separate us from God." Uh no, because there is no god! However, I'll bet that lots you do would call for a separation.
Sin in the Bible is always tied inextricably to idolatry, which in its simplest form is the worship of something other than God, usually one's self.
Thus, the doctrine of Original Sin is best defined as the natural human tendency to worship oneself. Even those who are not Christians generally accept this premise and the corollary that in order to create a better family, community, country, world we must strive against that tendency.
2
I don't think that's accurate.
Yes, the original sin doctrine is part of the first monotheism on earth, Judaism - and then later became part of Christianity and Islam, the other 2 monotheism basing their theology on the Ancient Testament.
But monotheism means not worshiping any other GOD than the God of the Bible/Quran.
"Worshiping" means erecting an alter and performing rituals to honor your god and to ask him to reward and protect you.
Before monotheism existed (and long after it was founded), "religion" referred to the cult that a particular place had developed for a local god. If you travel to a city/region, you worship the god of that place, NOT as the only god, but as the god in charge of protecting THAT particular place. As long as the Roman Empire, for instance, wasn't Christian yet (= most of its entire existence) Roman conquerors continued to respect this practice, and as a consequence worshiped the local god of each region they conquered, WHEN there.
There are NO instance of "idolatry" in the Bible where the idol (= literally "false god") is you yourself.
And God did not punish Adam and Eve for worshiping themselves/another god, but for eating from the tree of knowledge of good and bad.
Similarly, I have to admit that I don't know anybody "worshiping himself" ... .
In the meanwhile, science has shown that the extent to which we are able to be compassionate towards others, is directly determined by the extent to which we've cultivated self-compassion ...
The concept of original sin is lunacy. People are no more born evil than they are reincarnated from some earlier presence. The most which can be said is that humans evolved according to the contribution to survival that their decisions made. The better a decision is for surviving, the more likely it is that this decision will be repeated in future generations. Bad decisions will diminish because the humans making those bad decisions will die out.
That said, the supply of bad decisions is endless. But there is no moral sense attached to this. In fact, the concept of "morality" is as founded in ignorance as that of original sin. These are things which were fabricated throughout history as a way to provide meaning to life, and to assure a hereafter. In other words, they are fiction without current utility.
But ours is a free country. If some which to believe in these things, so be it.
10
"The most which can be said is that humans evolved according to the contribution to survival that their decisions made. The better a decision is for surviving, the more likely it is that this decision will be repeated in future generations."
Max: That cannot be true, or at a minimum it cannot be the whole story.
In the past, it is obvious that the occasional intentional killing of other humans was the right evolutionary decision for the killers and their group: they survived, the others did not.
This evidently then was not a bad decision according to these criteria.
But was it not the wrong decision, evil if you will?
1
"That cannot be true, or at a minimum it cannot be the whole story."
It's an existence proof. The traits which contribute to survival will themselves survive. But you're correct, they alone are not the entire story. There is a contextual hierarchy in play during evolution. One group of people will not rationally kill another group just for the sake of killing them. There needs to be some form of gain for the killers. Perhaps it's a territorial dispute, or revenge for a prior offense against them. Insanity aside, there is always a reason driving the action.
But the concepts of good vs evil, or right vs wrong, are subjective. The case can be made that whatever contributes to evolutionary success is good, because success is good. But then, "success" is a subjective concept, too, and puts us into a reductio ad absurdum discussion.
Good and evil are judgements not based in fact. Instead, they are based in values. Religions can be good in helping set the kinds of values which contribute to survival. But sometimes, they go too far in an attempt to explain the world around us, and end up irrationally harming the flow of discovery and thought needed for evolutionary advancement. In my opinion, original sin is such a harm.
Max: Let's assume for the moment that what is good for survival is "Good". To be more precise, what is good for evolutionary success is Good, and evolutionary success is nothing if not survival. Therefore "success" in this context is largely an objective concept, not subjective as you state.
To use a start example, it is plausible, arguable, and certainly possible that if Hitler was more measured in his sometimes rash actions, he may have succeeded, along with Germany, in dominating Europe for a long time, which would have eliminated the existence of certain groups, like the Jews.
This would have been objectively a Good, as German genes would have survived to a greater extent than otherwise, at the direct expense of others' genes. Voila, evolutionary success.
But we would judge this outcome evil.
How do you square an evolutionary concept of Good, and the concomitant supposed subjectivity of evil, with what one might perceive as evil objectively?
Are there really no principles?
Let’s ask this differently: Is there no principle under which the above described outcome would be evil by definition? Or shall we just say that, no matter, human history simply continues as a quest for individual or group survival?
I think we all recognize that we made up of both good and bad intentions and, whether religious or secular, we can agree that it is incumbent upon ourselves to control the bad as best we can while emphasizing the good. From a Judeo-Christian viewpoint, then the question is whether "original sin" as described in Genesis is a condition that we can, with conscious effort to do good, ameliorate (the Jewish viewpoint) or whether it was permanent, thus requiring a savior, Jesus, which is fundamental to Christian doctrine. My own belief is that a Christian can indeed be a follower of Jesus, putting an emphasis on leading an ethical life, loving ones neighbor, recognizing the bad within us, without dealing with the question of original sin's permanence.
2
Original sin was not described in Genesis. It was mentioned vaguely by Saint Paul ( centuries after the Torah was written) and systematized by Saint Augusting half a millenium later. Certainly it was not a basic part of Christianity.
Kudos, Mr. Sartwell, on a reasoned approach to a religious construct. The idea of “original sin” is tainted by religion, but when secularized, it is easier to accept as a shared biological trait rather than one imposed by a brand of religion. This can lead to a more reasoned understanding of human behavior without the specter of hopelessness that original sin imposes.
1
A wise colleague, an Episcopal minister who had decided atheism was more honest and sought other employment, once told me that "it is much easier to understand the world if one has a strong sense of original sin."
Words to live by.
1
Americans, with a country founded on slavery and genocide, should understand that we have some demons to deal with. The germs were around before 1492, probably going back to the earliest humans or even before. We won't end evil, but we need to face it, own it, and decide what we want to do about it.
Our major sins are more collective than personal.
8
Many excellent comments today. I think the best point to the Hebrew concepts that we try to interpret via the English language. There is always going to be consternation about the idea of "free will" vs. being "chosen." My thought is that when we put ourselves first, we deny the need for a relationship with the creator and we miss the opportunities to share what we have (no matter how abundant or limited) with those who are less fortunate. God is Love. It is not a physical thing but a way of relating to others and everything else in this amazing world we are a part of. Should we look at ourselves as evil? I think not. Should we look at ourselves as good? Perhaps that is being presumptuous as well. We have the capability to do evil deeds (by putting our desires ahead of all else and by reacting to feelings of hurt or anger) and we have the capability to be channels of love. It is your choice, but you can seek the help of a greater power. The Holy Spirit is the comforter Jesus promised to send when he left this place we call earth. Heaven is real but there is only one God and creator of us all.
1
I am no longer practicing Christian, but grew up, and lived a good chunk of adult life in a denomination that includes public confession of sin as part of its worship. I miss worship; just can’t accept the god part. Where else can I stand up, and along with my friends and neighbors, confess out loud and in public, that I have not lived up to the standards that I have set for myself, and that they demand of me, and perhaps most importantly, hear the words “you are forgiven.”
1
Try the Yom Kippur service in which practically every “sin” you can think of is confessed in repentance by the entire congregation. The sense of relief in knowing all the bad things you could have done — but didn’t — is enormous. So is the realization of communal and not just individual responsibility.
Perhaps our biggest failure lies in the fact that we cannot do the right thing without first creating a mythical concept, almost in our own image, to tell us what to do. The next biggest failure we keep committing is to follow the people who do not hesitate to contradict the standards of "good behavior" to promote their own ideas at the expense of others. Look in the paper every day to find examples of both along with the failure of the mythological creature by doing nothing!
Look back in time and you will see the horrors done in the name of God and how we explained them away by saying it is his way of punishing us for failing to behave as he wants us to behave. If we are indeed capable to act against this all mighty will is it not the failure of this mythological creature we created?
Recognizing that everything we do is based on selfish motivations will help us try to avoid zero sum gaming of each other. Ignoring the Mr. Hyde in us will just keep us oblivious to the harm we do to one another.
The Good News is that salvation from our sins, both original and copycat, has been purchased by Jesus Christ. All we have to do is reach out from life's carousel and grab the ring. That ring is the key. Wearing it means, at the very least, that you do unto others as you would be. It helps, of course, if you make an effort to be a believer. Whatever destiny is after our death is the one we ourselves create. At worst, there's no flames, only the lasting knowledge that we could have done better. Who knows what the surprises of our salvation will be?
1
I didn't understand the Garden of Eden until I understood the Buddha's teachings. The Buddha taught that we suffer whenever we get caught up in the relative world of good and bad––picking and choosing. But when we drop ALL thought and come back to our pure sensory experience of this moment all suffering drops away.
It's critical to note that Adam and Eve had it great until they ate from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". It's when we think we know what is good and what is bad that our troubles begin. This is how we are banished from the Garden of Eden.
The parable of the wise Chinese Farmer is instructive. Take it away Alan Watts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAVsJT9Uc_M
Mr. Sartwell himself eludes to this when he writes: "To complicate matters further, action undertaken for apparently good motives can often yield unintended harmful consequences, outweighing any possible good effects. We can intend, at best, only a tiny proportion of the effects of any of our actions."
But the lesson goes much deeper than most people realize. God was correct to warn Adam and Eve of the perils of thinking we know what is good and bad. We should heed this sage advice.
3
In fact, the Bible writes that God forbid Adam and Eve to OBTAIN knowledge of the good and the bad, because ONCE you eat from that tree, God will punish them - by inflicting huge suffering (including self-hate and shame) on themselves and ALL generations of human beings coming after them.
Before they knew what good and bad was, they were living in paradise, without any suffering.
Once they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, however, NOTHING happened. It's just that God decided to punish them for not having obeyed him ...
I fully agree that Buddhism teaches that what we tend to believe is good or bad often isn't. But I really don't see how to obtain a Genesis interpretation that would support that idea ... ?
I've always interpreted the concept of original sin, and the early chapters of Genesis, as one of the leading causes of Western's civilization's ills. The Bible teaches that God created the world and put man in it. The truth is we are as much a part of nature as a tree. This disparity between our true relationship with the world and the Biblical concept is the true original sin.
2
I read that one iconoclastic philosopher -- I think it was Nietsche - accused the Christian church of introducing sin into Western culture. Before then people might have felt guilty about individual acts but would not think of themselves as "corrupted by sin".
Original sin, to me, has always meant that every one of us is part of humanity, and humanity makes mistakes, and commits crimes. No one of us is free from having done something wrong. It is, as the author says, a form of humility. But humility seems to have little place in our modern, Twitter-fed culture of zero tolerance. There is little room for compassion or forgiveness in our culture either, both qualities that are encouraged by the concept of original sin. What we have plenty of, instead, is hypocrisy.
4
To speak of original sin and Adam and Eve in one sentence is almost laughable. There was no Adam and Eve and our sins are not the result of being thrown out of any garden of eden. Evolution has imparted us with the need to survive which is opposed by our social evolution that imparts our more altruistic behaviors. These have been the opposing forces of human existence for eons and will continue for some time to come. Biblical stories were promoted by people who knew very little of the natural world beyond surviving and had no means of explaining the forces of nature we now have a better, yet incomplete, understanding of.
9
If you want to talk about universal possibilities of failing and wrongdoing, try the Islamic view that this is simply a feature of being human. The Christian doctrine is too loaded with referral of that flaw to someone else's (Eve's, with all the anti-woman implications) "disobedience" and the impossibility of our doing any better because we are trapped in it, thus needing an "atonement" by someone else. It's hopelessly outside of our control on both ends, and at best divides the world into the "saved" and the "lost." Better yet, let your much-preferable secular humility-promoting view swing free of religion at all.
22
"We have created mankind to try him with afflictions."
- the Quran
1
I read somewhere that the original Greek meaning of the word " sin" was to be "off the mark" or "to be mistaken".
Taken in that context, the meaning of original sin takes on a new meaning. Certainly we are all quite mistaken or off the mark continually.
Somehow the meaning of the word has taken on a newer or more insidious meaning that is distorted into todays context of shame and fear.
So those that would drive people further in to the shame, fear and mental illness of this distorted meaning take on a more "evil" shape.
That is where the Grace of God and the life of Jesus take on their true meaning in the saving of "souls".
1
I don’t like either the traditional or secular version version of this idea. It’s an insulting myth foisted on humanity so that the Christian church can then conveniently present itself and its ideology as the one and only redemption we all must turn to if we are to be saved from our own damnation. To treat this “idea” outside this historical and rhetorical context, divorced from the role it has played and continues to play in the conversion tactics of the Church, is intellectually irresponsible. Philosophizing is often precisely this decontextualization that brings a problem into the purer air of conceptual clarity, but at the cost of understanding the idea’s social role.
That said, and at the risk of sounding cavalier, I’m not all that interested in my “evil,” mainly because it can create in those who focus upon it an ugly, brooding, internal distrust, which is deadly to the joyful, creative life to which I aspire. I like to keep my brow unfurrowed, free, easy, and open—the better to perceive and create beauty. There are ample enough shadows in this world to set off the light, and god knows there are enough drumbeaters for our depravity. The daily news in this paper alone is enough to support either version of “original sin.” In any case, no thanks, I’ve got a painting to finish.
2
The concept of Original Sin in Christianity?
I don't know how valid that is but I do know human life appears to be a perpetual emergency situation, that a child soon becomes aware "something is wrong" and does not know how to accurately locate this wrong, whether it is in self or others or the natural environment or elsewhere.
Obviously some of the wrongness of life is in self, at the least the defect of understanding, one's inability to comprehend existence. But in actuality wrongness in existence seems to be across the board in more and less subtle ways, now here, now there, to this or that degree. The life situation again is one of perpetual emergency, whether there is war or peace, whether this success or that exists or not.
Every person appears to be losing rather than winning at life, the problem of one's death obviously. But this loss is visible in any number of ways, and existence is often seemingly deviously subtle, sometimes tossing an obviously undeserved win our way, so we do not even win on our own.
Existence is strange, uncanny, seems to result in a paranoid schizophrenic mindset. Our every move appears to be anticipated, we are always at arrears, reading things into things and having things seemingly know our own minds. Obviously an increase in our intelligence is wanted, but probably the supreme virtue is courage, calmness as things constantly fall apart. People speak of needing to love, but it seems to me what is needed is calm, careful consideration.
1
The concept of original sin is part of the superstructure erected by the theologians, ecclesiastics, and theocrats on the simple and straightforward foundation of primordial monotheism, the Ten Commandments. Apart from the fact of the sexual intercourse and procreation that follows it is a biological necessity for the survival of the species, it is easy for the moral know-alls to associate it with everything pleasurable and indoctrinate the naive that life should be continuous suffering.
I never took the church literally on the concept of original sin. Like other stories in the bible, say the origin of Satan, you are often given a cautionary tale. The rich. intellectuals and scientist could learn from learn most from a story about not putting yourself above God.
I often misinterprete things, like the meaning of original sin. To me it meant you have to live which may cause problems for others. We are born this way and should try to do better. The secular would like to roll back to an era when their churich (themselves) gets to punish people for being born. White privilege, the patriarchy, holding people accountable for things that happened before they were born are some of the ways they practice guilt. A practice better left to pro's.
Rather than focus on the intrinsic possibility of doing wrong, the essence of the Original Sin doctrine, we should admit that behavior is pluripotential. Some of us can better abide within the warm goals of thinking right, speaking right, and acting right than can others. "Love your neighbor as yourself" and the Golden Rule, foundational concepts of great faiths, are calls to move away from life red in tooth and claw. Both are within us, both need support, constraint, reward and punishment in this world, a world where suffering and joy mingle, one allowing the other to be perceived because each is the contrast or shadow of its opposite, inseparable.
Addicts are hideous within their degraded state, and heal only when their reserve of character or self-love rises above the drug's shriek. Murder, that erasure of human life and potential for change, is therefore vile. For the perpetrator, as my southern aunt would say, "Some men just need killin' ", a recognition that fatal flaws exist among the pluripotential realms of human behavior. Call it Original Sin, if you will.
Get serious! Original Sin is nothing more than a concept decreed by men who were using the idea to inject fear into superstitious followers in order to better control them. Just like Easter when a bunch of guys decreed that it was the first Sunday after the full moon after the vernal equinox--more superstition!
2
Alas, belief in the original sin does not necessarily encourage people to behave better. We may in fact behave worse, if we also believe that forgiveness can be cheaply and repeatedly purchased from a divine vending machine.
Popes used to own slaves, run brothels and trade venereal diseases. They knew the doctrine yet were not chastened.
I'm a Christian and we're taught to love, not hate. But I remember vividly my soul searching during of the bombing of Iraq, the tug-of-war within myself not to hate the perpetrators of that crime. It passed eventually; but when I recently saw Donald Rumsfeld giving his views on TV, I thought how can you be allowed to speak to us? In Japan you would have apologized profusely or committed hara kiri.
The sin is not to see others as an erring person-- but asl a human being capable of repentance. We must forgive seventy times seven. And in the end say Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
Our present government is teeterimg on the brink of another middle east war egged on by Israel and the Saudis. Have we learned the lesson of Iraq? Can we as a peace loving people stop it this time?
2
The concept of Original Sin was designed to chain humans to fear and trembling as irredeemable except through constant adherence to man-made dogma. I learned this when the Catholic Church switched to English for my infant son's Baptism, the only way he could be cleansed of Original Sin.
As the priest blessed my child with holy water and ordered the devils out (Beelzebub among them) I realized that this concept was design to imprison this innocent infant in darkness. I believe in the Natural Law written in the human heart. We know right from wrong even when we fail our better selves. We don't need "dogma."
1
The original "Original Sin" could have been when God decided to take a day off and let the as yet imperfect creation finish the job. The presence of evil in the world cannot be attributed to the Creator because of the notion that even if we can't fully comprehend God, we still can claim that God was pleased with his handiwork.
Clearly, if God is not at fault, the imperfections in creation must be the fault of the created. What would be the role of religion in the world if all that could be said is that it's God's fault? No, religious authorities had to create a false position that all that is wrong is due to the failures of the created - but how could the created be at fault in a faultless creation?
Oh, well, those who are not capable of honest work find a way to live off others by claiming that they can mollify God by rituals and prayers. Usually they do this by appealing to the basest aspects of human nature, while at the same time displacing evil on to the others. Love thy neighbour - as long as (s)he looks and thinks like you.
The concept of Original Sin is the greatest sin perpetrated on humanity since Creation. It so warps thinking that even the unintended consequences of secular human activity, e.g., the coal-driven steam engine causes global warming, can be attributed to this nonsensical concept because it confuses the reality that benefits have costs with the existence of costs.
"Original Sin' is a self-hate concept, a peculiarity of human psychology.
Original sin is a concept invented by humankind to control and profit from human frailty. Add church bells in a steeple in every community and you’ve got a great business (the guilt business). We are here to outgrow our “bad” habits through experience gained in many lives. There is no such thing as “original sin” only original ignorance – something we need to work on, something that makes us more or less stupid but never intrinsically evil.
2
How about a reflection on why an individual should be able to purchase a weapon with the capacity to kill 5,10,20 people in less than a minute.
This is separate and apart from a bolt action hunting rifle.
1
For me, the most curious part about the Christian doctrine of original sin is the specific sin described in the story: acquiring the knowledge of good and evil. How is that even a sin?
Good and evil are human cultural concepts imposed on the natural world. There is no good and evil involved when a fox eats a rabbit. We generally consider it evil when a brother kills his sister, except in parts of Afghanistan where he is morally obligated to do so if the sister refuses to marry the husband the family has picked out for her. Carnage in warfare is good or evil depending on which side does it, your own side or the other side.
But aside from that conundrum, why is it a sin to have knowledge of good and evil? Is ignorance virtue? Is religious devotion dependent on a rejection of knowledge?
2
I refer readers to Marilynn Robinson (her non fiction essays in, The Death of Adam), for a genuine understanding of the doctrine of original sin, Calvinism, and Puritanism.
But other than Sartwell's brief - and typical - mishandling of those subjects at the start of his Op-Ed, this is an excellent discussion of the fallenness (flawedness) of humanity, but also of the beauty and worthiness of our race . . . as Robinson would also insist.
To my mind, the teaching of the ancient story of original sin is not that humans are "inherently depraved," but rather that, born inherently good and then tempted to evil, we have the capacity for both. The concept of that temptation, and of Adam and Eve both yielding to it, sets up the most fundamental element of our humanity--our free will. It is up to us to decide which we will choose.
3
What Sartwell calls a "secular" version of the doctrine of original sin is exactly what I've been hearing and preaching in a mainline liberal denomination my whole life. Give us a little credit. "Christianity/church/religion" is not comprised entirely of fundamentalist or dogmatic shame-wielders. Millions of Christians have always taken this doctrine to mean exactly what you've newly discovered: humility.
4
Blame and shame. The concept of original sin is a way to keep people in line. How about we start out not judging, but loving our newborns from gestation forward. When they stumble, use the rod to point the way forward, instead of as a corporal weapon of verbal humiliation and physical abuse. Every time we devalue another by abuse or neglect, we give birth to interior ghosts which cripple what might have been. I try to see the humaneness in everyone, including me.
87
It is obvious that the problem with the concept of original sin is like the old paradox about “who is on first and who is on second.”
If psychology and psychoanalysis had been developed to explain our nature before the original sin myth came into being, we would have saved ourselves much pain and “gnawing of teeth” through history. That concept has been an important ingredient of human mistrust and abuse with each other, enough punishment to exceed what was deserved for simply being… human. A God who would allow creation to get out of control in such a way is no God at all.
2
Christianity certainly recognizes original sin AND salvation by grace through the blood of Jesus. This author tries to divide the two, which by Christian doctrine can’t be done. Personally I find that the Bible often reflects very old concepts in addition to the religious points. And sometimes I think the Bible hints at other possibilities. Like original sin as originating with humankind’s emergence into consciousness from mere animalhood. It would take another Joseph Campbell to fully explore that. Please note the part of the richness of the Bible lies in its very old notions and it’s hints of other possibilities.
I'm an agnostic, but I couldn't agree more - as a philosopher.
"Original sin" today is part of a VERY deep philosophical and theological tradition. That means that the only way to make sense of it, is to study it inside that tradition.
Many philosophers today tend to systematically takes notions/sentences completely out of context, and then brainstorm a little bit about their own, out of context opinion around those words.
You can do so, of course, but that will never lead to a real, solid new concept, as the only way to build such a concept is to build an entire new philosophy/theology.
And trying to build a philosophy that is not fundamentally Christian, as someone who grew up in a Christian culture (= like most of us in the West), is actually extremely difficult, as most of our opinions are implicitly based on fundamental philosophical positions, created by thousands of great Christian philosophers century after century.
2
The act of looking within without self denigration is always difficult and a huge discipline. Society itself opposes it because if acted upon it takes great effort to change what one finds not only in oneself but in society itself. President Carter tried it when he admitted lusting in his heart when he saw beautiful women. No one ever thought he would act on this, but many thought him a fool for admitting what so many do.
That he was trying to get us to look at the roots of our motivations and take personal responsibility for our selves was resisted strenuously. Without looking at ourselves clearly and without judgment is the first step to wisdom and clear action.
The idea of Original Sin has so many religious connotations, but it is also evident in our Darwin's theories of inherited traits and evolution. We can not separate ourselves from who ourselves unless we sacrifice our humanity. Within us exists all the elements of what we consider both good and bad. If we are ever to have a chance to create something better self examination must help us choose in ourselves the former and acknowledge the latter.
6
Why do we still cling to the word sin? It is a religious concept loaded with judgement and condemnation. Believing a child is born sinning is a terrible hurdle to overcome.
We are born as a blank canvas awaiting the experiences and expressions of our genetic code to paint the picture. The belief in original sin loads the canvas with darkness.
27
my sentiments exactly; as I was reading this opinion piece, I kept "feeling" but there is nothing in here that warrants the use of the term "original sin" to understand human beings or, if you like, human nature. And, just think of the consequential notion of all those poor souls who are not redeemed in one way or another burning forever because Adam and Eve ate some apples off the wrong tree. Seems like crimes against humanity perpetrated by an evil god. At any rate, there is much to explore about how and why human beings relate to each other and the rest of the world as they do without appealing to original sin at all.
1
I'm struck by the way the comments either accept or reject the Fall story, but all take it literally, as if what matters is whether it actually happened. That approach is to miss the truth the story expresses. As I read it, the Fall of Adam and Eve is trying to express a deep insight about how human beings fell from enjoying a world of incredible beauty and abundace, one alive with spiritual presence and love, into the trap of seeing the world as a place of scarcity, threat, and fear - a place where God is absent or threatening - and so fell into violence. Judaism and Christianity at their best both affirm a God who works to rescue us from the "scarcity trap" and to enable us to trust God and God's creation, including ourselves, and so stop living in fear. I find that the Fall story illuminates much about the human situation - most profoundly, that apart from an ability to trust that God and God's creation are trustworthy, human beings are unable to make sound judgments about what is good and what is evil, and are driven to try to secure their lives by trying to control everything around them - nature, women, people of color, or whatever feels threatening, which is pretty much everything. This is the core of "original sin". All religious traditions at their best (and psychotherapy) offer ways to restore human beings to a healthier capacity to overcome fear and live more in harmony and trust.
5
We have met the enemy and s/he is our ego. We're each born with one and it's from our ego that our "sin" either grows or is tempered.
Thank you for offering a secular view. Found that to be a refreshing angle, at least to these eyes.
4
Sorry, but having spend a dozen years in Catholic schools, It seems plain to me that the notion that I was bad until proven otherwise is profoundly upsetting to your children, that primary schoolers presented with this idea by stern nuns will suffer a lifetime of conflict, anxiety, and senseless guilt. In addition, Freud, Darwin, Existentialism, and just bout any other philosophical system already tell us about the lack of reason and the flaws that drive us. We acknowledge this--unless we are Donald Drumpf. But why build another cult around the flawed human state when we spend too much time bemoaning it and not enough time trying to improve it.
13
Almost a half century ago, after an unusually unpleasant experience, I did what Mr. Sartell suggests. I forced myself to push away defensive, self-justifying thoughts in order to look clearly and honestly at my core darkness. As I swatted away one defensive mental move after another, a remarkable thing happend. Suddenly from what seemed to be the very ground of being there welled up absolute, unconditional love that embraced me and affirmed me. An atheist at the time, two years later this same encounter reoccured, yet even more fully realized, and I became a believing Christian. What I’d experienced, I later learned, was a “spontaneous contemplative” union with the Divine, something “mystics” in many religions have had. Yes, Christian faith tells us that we human beings are “bent” in the depths of our being. But it also tells us that absolute love is deeper yet. I hope that even secular folks who, like Emerson, are awake to their deepest faults, will experience that divine, all-affirming, irrepressible Love as well.
44
The Buddha, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and I believe everyone who finds forgiveness grace and love willing up from within themselves can not help but share it with others, but like you say it sometimes requires a journey into the dark places that also dwell within us. From this above I believe that what Christians call grace is available to all of us even Emerson who was a Unitarian Universalist, a humanist. I really thank you for your deep story which bring us together unless we get hung up in divisions such as belittling the multitude of paths which if followed sincerely can bring us to compassion and love.
5
Nitram, read Michael Pollan's new book "How to Change Your Mind". There are other ways to experience "spontaneous contemplation". ;)
2
There is a powerful secular interpretation of the doctrine of original sin in the work of the great 19th-century French philosopher Charles Renouvier as I have explained in my _Charles Renouvier: Philosopher of Liberty_(LSU Press, 1993).
1
Everything that we are, our physical and mental characteristics and propensities, has been forged by evolution. These attributes are not intrinsically good or bad. In fact, by any measure, we are a wildly successful species. The problem arises when we put a species which evolved to succeed in a world of small hunter/gatherer tribes into large complex civilizations. Many of our successful adaptations don’t work so well any more and are, in fact, counterproductive; pollution, climate change, institutional racism, industrialized warfare are just a few examples. The religious idea of original sin does not help us resolve this dilemma but, like much of religion, only obscures the real problem.
12
Another way to look at this is to accept that social evolution over the last 2 M years has conditioned us, and hard-wired our brains, for tribalism, prejudice, greed, avarice, theft, selfishness, violence, murder, retribution, charismatic leadership and blind-followership, etc... These 'virtues' were probably related to survival thousands of years ago when we lived in small groups of hunter-gatherers, often competing with other such groups for scarce resources. The problem is that all of these 'virtues' are profoundly dysfunctional in a modern mega-society. They may still have some virtue in some remote parts of the countryside (hence their more-likely prevalence there, and the popularity of backward politics in the 'country'), but in our cities, where the vast majority lives, these 'virtues' are poison, and threaten to kill and enslave us. Modern society must rely instead on merit, fairplay, equality, respect for all, and civility. The difficult thing is to turn our back on these hard-wired instincts, ... but we must!
7
Or, as Hickey discovers in Eugene O'Neill's Iceman, achieving our own inner peace by accepting our own inherent moral failings will lead to madness. Perhaps it's better to see them for what they really are ~ failings.
Originally, that is before the origin of our particular species, we were animals without any concepts whatsoever. No more than your pet cat at this very moment. How did we get from that blameless state to this self laceration?
1
It's not self-laceration to hold ourselves and others responsible for bad acts within our control. Human society just could not work if we all preyed on each other without some cognitive check.
Fair enough. Has human society ever worked? That is: what does it mean to work?
I hoped to point out the giant disconnect between our real origins and the fables made up about them, perhaps to make us feel better or to control our natural instincts.
I don’t know about you, but I want for myself what Emerson boasted of having, the “capacity for every crime.” Without such a capacity, how could I possess any freedom at all? But it comes with a price. My will, broken into two irreconcilable halves, the “secular” vs. the “transcendent,” must grant its autonomy to a third source, an “arbitrary” act of grace in relation to which its incapacity is irredeemable. It is the price of freedom. Every attempt to “secularize” this enigma denies its essence. But so does our inflexible belief in an alien “transcendent,” which robs us of our freedom. The essence of original sin is epistemic, not moral. I must resign myself to my inability to comprehend my own transcendence. It is this act of inner resignation which prevents the liberating possibility that I am irretrievably corrupt from corrupting me irretrievably.
4
One of the potential, maybe willful, misunderstandings of the translation of the original Hebrew is that "good and evil" means, or only means, "good" and "evil".
However, as some analysts have pointed out, the Hebrew phrase "good and evil" may be taken as a figure of speech that means "everything", that is "knowledge of everything", or as we might colloquially say "the knowledge of everything, the good and the bad", or in another context "the rough with the smooth", etc.
This makes more sense. It may be interpreted as the beginning of human consciousness, evidently in disobedience to the creator, at least according to the Bible, a flawed witness if there ever were one.
From this evolved the menacing and suffocating Doctrine of the Original Sin. If we survey the history of that Doctrine, what seems inescapable is its appropriation by a variety of groups, especially religions, for the purpose of social control, mainly through the imposition of irredeemable guilt on all humans.
This is a very dark vision of humanity, much darker than the more benign and accurate observation, almost trivial, that each human is capable, given the right circumstances, of the entire scale of moral behavior.
The Original Sin may be The Doctrine of The Original Sin.
23
A certain amount of guilt is a necessary component of a healthy moral life.
10
True. You just don't need the Christian idea of Original Sin to feel guilty or to have a moral life, which I think is what a lot of the objections are about. Mine, anyway.
This is marvelous. We've lost a sense of skepticism about our own assumptions and our common sense that we are basically good people. You only know yourself by observing dispassionately what you actually say and do, as you are doing it, without equivocation, rather than taking for granted what you commonly assume about your motives and your own heart. That kind of watchfulness is rare, and it's essentially what original sin requires: the resolve to stand back and observe your own mind and its ability to deceive itself. It's also a willingness to let a higher understanding guide you--which is to surrender one's willfulness to a greater power, however that's construed. The meaning of "sin" itself has been obscured by the common sense of committing evil, when original sin is about the fundamental ignorance that results of being cut off from what's real, from God, in a way that obscures this rupture from your own awareness--evil behavior being the byproduct of that "fall". The result of this ignorance is akin to denial, in the recovery movement--the failure to recognize your own inability to see what's actually the case in your life and your behavior. You can't know what you're fundamentally unable to know--in this case, yourself--and to admit this requires a humility that opens up new possibilities for being good despite this lack of certainty about one's own nature.
9
If I could recommend this twice, I would.
1
The current, universally adopted code of conduct was developed over tens of thousands of years of trial and error. Respect for that hard won set of cultural truths is the basis of our morality and doesn't require goddesses or gods to hand down those moral tenets from on high. Original sin, or that concept is of Western in origin, that places a burden of guilt upon all humans because of an affront to god made by a long dead ancestor. Theft, murder, incest, cannibalism and perjury are universal actions that are punished in almost all societies, both Eastern and Western. Ideas that are promoted by all cultures include respect and love for family, honoring creativity, fairness and others. Christianity, the local religion de jour, promotes forgiveness as a way for people to rectify past transgressions but that carries with it the danger of giving offenders an easy way out ofpunishment for their sins. I find personal regret is a much stronger a force steering one toward a better self.
6
George, what you write is ok at a surface level. But if you really think that "... [a] hard won set of cultural truths is the basis of our morality" then we have a real problem. Morality should not be a specie of case law, as it were. If it is, it can surely evolve, and differ form place to place, and what was wrong yesterday may be right today, and vice versa. But on what is this evolution based? Or are there some bedrock principles?
1
Looking at the whole world, I am not aware of any universally adopted code of conduct. I do not know to what you are referring.
2
For sure human beings are far from perfect.
However, it's always seemed to me that the idea of "original sin" as usually propounded or expressed, is more a very cynical method of inculcating unearned guilt and pushing individuals to join a movement or organization that proposes--without any hard evidence at all--alleviate that guilt.
In other words, perhaps the idea of original sin is a cynical manipulative device.
11
The most bizarre aspect of the religious concept of original sin is that it is heritable. This despite the bible's diktat that the sins of the father not be visited on the son.
The religious doctrine of original sin can be stated succinctly thus: Once, 6000 years ago, there were only two living humans. They disobeyed God by eating a piece of fruit, and therefore became aware of the concepts of right and wrong. For some reason, this made God angry (even though he knew in advance that it would happen, being omniscient). As a result, everyone born from these two individuals (presumably, all living humans, don't think about that for too long) inherited that original crime, since understanding the difference between right and wrong is somehow bad?
And the clergy wonders why people are leaving religion in droves. We atheists don't even have to mock religion - it mocks itself, we just narrate.
213
Totally funny and one way to go in criticism.
The whole Eden story though ought to be thought about, understood and interpreted as an allegory, a parable, where none of the statements of physical fact can be taken as literally true. There are some lessons in it.
14
John Xavier III, sit in the pews of a Church of Christ for a few weeks of Sunday morning, Sunday evening and Wednesday evening services. You can say "The whole Eden story...ought to be thought about, understood and interpreted as an allegory" all you like. There are millions who believe it, swallowing the whole thing without question, literally, down to the point that the Universe did not exist 7,000 years ago.
2
Glen: I am not my brother's keeper. In a free country, which this so far is, people are free to believe, and vote by the way, as they choose, as long as I have the same right. I don't see that as fatal to either their existence or mine.
It's very early in California as I read this, and perhaps I need another cup of coffee, but for the life of me I can't see the point to this column.
To urge a new secular concept of Original Sin is fine, but to then call that secular concept a "new Puritanism" and hope there are "fewer witch trials this time around" is profoundly incorrect. Puritanism was incredibly reactionary and rigid, while secularism is neither. It the first Puritans had been secular, there would have been no witch trials at all.
As a secular humanist, I find the whole notion of original sin to be so flawed that I've walked away from it altogether. I leave the debate over it to the Christians and professors of philosophy.
135
The author of this article, Crispin Sartwell, is apparently a college professor of philosophy. It's not so often the case with actual philosophers, but my experience with pedagogues of philosophy strongly suggests that they've little interest in answers, they're only interested in the questions. Good answers ruin the fun. Forced to give an actual answer, they tend towards incoherence.
9
I also did a double take. Say what??
They are two different things. Maybe because I come from Massachusetts where the Boston Puritans created a theocracy, with the equivalent of the police following the order of church authorities to punish people for minor infractions, where sermons went on for 3 hours, and the origin puritans argued if the women should be made to wear a veil.
The devout Anne Hutchinson ran afoul of them for leading some bible study for women and was exiled. (Too many husbands wanted to attend and that the authorities couldn't tolerate.
Roger Williams, who founded the RI colony. A minister in both Salem and Plymouth, he wrote the first Native American-English dictionary and befriended them, without feeling he had to convert them or see them as subhuman.
The Boston authorities hated his theology and was about to capture him and send him back to England, where he almost certainly would have been killed for his religious stance. I say all this because Williams called for strict separation of church and state. Something we struggle to do now.
4
Original sin is the Bible's effort to deal with the appearance of evil in the world. It became important because Christianity , and Paul's writings, became the official religion of the Roman Empire, and it was later preached all over the world. Reinhold Niebuhr updated it in the 1940s, as did Sartre, but as connected with Adam and Eve, it lacks empirical verification: they were simply a convenient myth, and, of course, there is no apple. Hobbs accepted it, which led him to postulate a very nasty view of human nature, but Locke did not, preferring a more neutral view of human mature ("tabula rasa") as capable of going any number of ways depending on experience. The nature/nurture discussion still continues, and it is not likely to be settled simply by talking or writing about it. The religious trappings can be dispensed as irrelevant in today's world, but the sense that some of us do commit unbelievably evil acts is something to keep in mind as we raise our children and send them to school. Millions in our nation claim the right to own guns as their fundamental right, not the right to live, to pray, to love, and to pursue happiness. Environments matter, even if they are not the only thing responsible for our nurture: why not create environments of beauty (beautiful schools, not squalid and stark), of peace, of companionship, of friendship? Why must we fight for moneys to achieve this? In this context, lapsarian theologies seem irrelevant.
25
Thank you for your article. As a Unitarian whose faith is based in Asian principles, I find such thinking quite interesting. It is very different from how I now view the world, but I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools. There are lots of parts of Christianity I never got as a kid, and as an adult. Not to offend anyone, but I do not find these ideas very useful in my day to day life, but to see the world as other view it is fascinating in observing the human experience. Every person is my master in that I may learn from them.
6
E. O. Wilson wrote that humans are "evolutionary chimera." We have a reptile brain (medulla) that it considered primitive in the same head that has a huge cerebrum that begat the works of Mozart and Einstein. We put men on the moon and are simultaneously destroying our planet. We are filled with other-condemning emotions such as anger, disgust and contempt but also other-suffering emotions including empathy, compassion and self-sacrifice. We are a farrago of competing, and sometimes contradictory capabilities. The key, I think, is not to disavow the ones we don't like as they played critical positive roles in our evolutionary past. The key is to understand that we have a choice about whether and how to access these qualities and capabilities in the present.
33
Yes, but both brain and evolved tendencies, and their present relevance, are more complex -- 'higher' 'moral' tendencies include 'prosocial' ones to stigmatize out-groups and favor our own, which further cooperation within groups and lethal violence toward outgroups. Reptiles aren't good at concerted group genocide. Chimpanzees do better at this. Humans, able to morally stigmatize at a group level, and form alliances beyond face-to-face groups in flexible socially constructed ways, are the vertebrate genocide champions. From Burma to America, from state-sponsored moralized lethal religious persecution to political polarization that may end in civil war, the complex evolved suite of older and newer capacities that allow these is now in play. Recognition of this within in our own groups and in ourselves and, yes, choosing wisely in the light of this self-knowledge, is needed.
7
Very thoughtful reply. There should be more conversations like this.
Excellent piece, and I am totally with Emerson. Many thinkers, including notably Carl Jung, have pointed out the dangers of sublimating, failing to acknowledge, our "dark side." We witness the sad, often tragic, outcomes of that denial.
But what for me is more striking for me is the human capacity for love. We see the expressions of that capacity every day, in small gestures and large --from the touch of a hand to the dedication and sacrifice of one for another. Love is the spirit's GPS. Its expression in this very dark time allows me hope. And right now I am hoping for a tidal flood of love to wash away the toxic pollution in Washington in November, 2018.
30
Professor Sartwell's article is a perfect example of what my pastor, in a sermon preached just yesterday, called Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, the prevalent religion of the day. It consists of five points - 1)God exists and watches over human life; 2)God wants people to be good, nice and fair to each other; 3)The central goal of life is to be happy and feel good about ones self; 4)God doesn't need to be involved in our daily lives; 5)Good people go to heaven.
The professor also misses the entire point that Apostle Paul was trying to make.... that we are not capable of doing good on our own without the power of the Holy Spirit to change our hearts. Paul talks about the fruit of the spirit: - kindness, patience, gentleness, love, joy, self-control, faithfulness, peace, goodness. Cultivating these nine attributes is no small task. Paul reminds us that the Pharisees had an entire system devoted to following the Ten Commandments and the laws of the OT, but their hearts were hard. Jesus was much more concerned with the heart than performing good deeds.
12
I think what you are missing in this article is that the holy spirit exists within all humans - not simply "Christians." You do not need to "accept Jesus" as a literal process but accept his sermon of love. A sermon that is culturally universal. Also Jesus preached action over and over again - compelled by love - any church that preaches that good works don't matter is more concerned with their treasury balance than with their flock's souls.
10
With respect, I have to wonder if you even read the piece. Instead of the five points you outline, Prof. Sartwell instead offers an idea of the beauty of the doctrine of original sin in our modern context. I suggest that you take another look.
2
What a destructive notion. And presumptuous - Christianity claiming credit for itself for every act of non-evil in the world. Someone acted kindly, but it can't be because they are, actually, kind.....it must be because the Holy Spirit changed their heart??? Why in the world would anyone believe that?
6
You're absolutely correct, when you say, "There is some level of self-scrutiny too merciless for most of us, some inner corridor too dark." This could have been written by the great psychoanalyst, Carl G. Jung, who advocated that we do this "inner work" by analyzing our dreams or using his technique of "active imagination." Jung maintained that we all have a dark, unconscious or "shadow" side that these techniques allow us to reveal. Jung counseled that unless we embrace our shadow, we will continue to project it on to others, as St. Paul noted about hate, and be controlled by the "complexes" (of which Freud's Oedipus complex is the most famous) that are hidden in the dark "inner corridor." For as Jung said, the original sin is, "The world hangs by the thread of man's psyche." That is, our limited consciousness that is sin we all carry from the "tree of knowledge."
5
The most powerful arguments against such notions of original sin come from feminist scholars, who rightly point out that for many girls and women, our sins are not that we are to self-centered, proud, and fail to care for others. Indeed, for many girls and women, our "sin" might be that we are too giving, not proud enough, and care for others even to our own detriment. Might I suggest reading Valerie Saiving's classic essay, "The Human Situation"? A devastating critique of Reinhold Neibuhr and Augustinian views of original sin.
13
I feel like you are not actually responding to what the author wrote. His theme, it seems to me, is that certain natural human tendencies are not conducive to living a spiritual and moral life, and that seeing original sin in that context can be helpful for any human being, male or female. That a patriarchal system has different rules for males and females seems like a completely separate issue.
8
Amen! Let's hear it for original sin! Some of the comments on this piece should note that Sartwell, like the catechism in the Book of Common Prayer, doesn't understand original sin as the legacy of Adam and Eve. It simply means that we start out sinful, and despite upbringing and our best moral efforts, we stay that way. Unlike a lot of peculiar things Christians believe (incarnation, atonement, resurrection), original sin (as G. K. Chesterton noted) can be proven by experience. If you want proof of original sin, take two two-year-olds and one toy, put them in a sandbox, and watch what happens.
15
You may see original sin in that sandbox with the two-yr olds; I see a developmental stage. I can't fathom that we "start out sinful" or innocent--we just start out and things accrete from there.
4
But two-year olds are not full human beings. They're not exhibiting "original sin" - if there is such a thing - they just have no idea why somebody would try to take away something they want.
As they age, they will notice that some people do indeed want to exploit others, and their own sandbox experience will help them understand why that's wrong: because somebody gets hurt. Those who remember and learn from the sandbox will be those who do not want to exploit others and will do what they can to help those who are being exploited.
So it's actually a good thing that toddlers are exposed to such behavior.
3
I am of an age that it was the norm to examine one's conscience in search of failings and transgressions. Today's message, however, seems to be one of unconditional love, such as pronouncements that God loves us "unconditionally." My concept of God is not anthropomorphic: God to me is a power outside myself - a mystery. And the lesson that I glean metaphorically from scripture is that Jesus did not die for our sins, but rather Jesus died because of our sins. Our failings and transgressions are what prevents the world from being hospitable: a world that cooperates rather than competes; shares rather than hoards; embraces rather than bullies; kindles the warmth of peace rather than beat the drums of war. Whether one believes in a deity or not, honest introspection is essential to peace, justice and, perhaps, even our survival.
95
The thing is, Original Sin, at least as it comes out of the Bible, is a Christian concept eventually used to bolster the teachings of Christ several thousand years later. While it makes for an entertaining story, it is a myth, complete with a beautiful garden and a talking snake.
Human nature, on the other hand, has always been a mix of good and evil. This is unlikely to change. Original Sin is a way of reconciling that, but is no more a reality than the Garden of Eden.
57
GK Chesterton pointed out a long time ago that Original Sin "is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved." Moral depravity is latent in all of us, and not necessarily in a flamboyant way. It can take banal forms as well. Acknowledging this in a systematic way is what an examen of conscience is. We can then work on resisting these tendencies within ourselves with the better angels of our nature. For the flip side of OS is the recognition of the inherent good in ourselves as well. This is not just an Enlightenment notion but a biblical one too.
18
There is one piece you left out of the discussion.
It is that the Christian concept of Original Sin casts the blame solely on Eve, and by extension womanhood.
Her reach for the fruit of the tree of knowledge had been used ever since as one large tool wielded against mothers and daughters and lovers for the original sin of being female.
182
Adam is implicated indirectly. What was thinking when Eve tempted him with the fruit? Did he not remember God's words? As guilty as Eve, in my book. I also believe that good/bad dichotomy is inherent in all of creation. Can't have one without the other.
24
Adam is just as guilty as Eve. Blaming only Eve is a serious misreading of Scripture. Better to blame ourselves. I've committed plenty of sins on my own so I don't need to "borrow" any from Adam and Eve.
Human beings are capable of great evil and great goodness. God gives us all the choice-- "free will". we can choose God's way or not. But we cannot eliminate God from the equation: "secular" theology, like "Christianity" without Christ, is a foolish and ultimately self-defeating attempt to try to kick God off His throne and take His place. Never works.
3
I have to say that I've always been fascinated by the Christian tradition's attempts to lay the bulk of the blame for eating the fruit on the woman (not yet named Eve). A look at the relevant text shows the woman to have been, not a temptress, but humanly curious.
The relevant text reads, "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. (Genesis 3:6)" Were the text only to say "pleasing to the eye," one might have a case for a person of little depth. But "desirable for gaining wisdom"? That's something different. And wisdom is what she gains; so, too does her husband by virtue of his mate's urging. Indeed, their expulsion concerns God's wish that they, now having come to know good and evil, does not wish for them to become immortal, too. "And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. (Genisis 3:22)"
Perhaps the Garden story is not about how we became innately evil at all. Perhaps it's about our innate ability for wisdom, that the human task concerns our original deed of desire for moral wisdom.
This is a task we often fail at achieving. Yet within us dwells that great potential--to acquire moral knowledge and then act upon that knowledge and remake the world in the image of the Divine.
2
For me, the question of Original Sin has always been a question of emphasis and balance. In its purest form the doctrine of Original Sin claims that humans are inherently evil (or bad); that our natural state is fallenness and sin.
I believe that there is a basic goodness in most humans. Most of us care about doing the right thing, want to be "good" people, and respond to the need of others around us in positive, caring ways. That said, we are far from perfect. Theologically speaking, human beings are the creatures, not the Creator. We are made limited, i.e., we do not live forever; we are flawed. To paraphrase Paul, 'The good we want is not what we do, but the evil we do not want is what we do' more often than we would like.
Perfection? Certainly not. Original sin? Not, IMO, if by that we mean that on balance humans are at their core evil beings. If, however, we simply mean that we are not perfect, that I'd wholeheartedly agree with.
47
There's a difference between the Catholic idea of OS (we are wounded in our nature from the get go, but still are also good) and the Protestant, specifically Lutheran idea that we are all completely depraved from the start. There are of course nuances in both versions. The Catholic version incorporates the Biblical view of the inherent glory of human beings at the beginning, but of course this is somewhat at odds with the theory of evolution. There have been lots of theological dances on the head of a pin on this issue.
20
Has everybody forgotten? Adam and Ever were punished on the spot. They had among other punishments to leave their paradise on earth.
So that first wrong choice did not go immediately unpunished. Furthermore for that reason there is no one born with this left over "original sin". What we are born with is free choice between choosing good and evil. Remember that when the preachers yell that you're going to burn in hell for that sin unless you are saved by only their interpretation of God.