Deist Asking a CC Theology Question

[SailorMom]

Ok - First - this is a sincere question.

 

It just occurred to me a few days ago, and I've been debating asking - because I don't want to start a brawl on here.

 

Please, please, please - if this questions offends you in some way - understand that I honestly did not see a way it could be offensive (but I've said that before and been wrong - which is why I am saying this....) and am seriously interrested. Studying religion and its history is what I do and I am a history major.... so really - sincere. Keep in mind - I am asking for academic reasons and am not Christian so have no opinion either way, really.

 

 

So - this is for those of you who do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis:

 

If you do not beleive that Adam and Eve were actual, physical people, and that Adam and Eve brought sin into the world in the Garden of Eden, how is the concept of Original Sin explained in your denomination? Also - the need for Christ's salvation from sin?

 

 

I am not questioning your belief or sincerity or the validity of your faith, I've just never hear it explained.

:grouphug:

[LittleIzumi]

This is not quite what you were asking for, but as LDS don't generally believe in a 100% literal interpretation of Genesis (we're not YE, anyway, although we do believe in Adam and Eve with physical bodies), and we don't believe in Original Sin, here is how we see the Garden of Eden (from mormon.org, an official LDS site):

 

As God’s first children on earth, Adam and Eve were living in their garden paradise. They didn’t feel any sorrow or pain, which might seem nice, except that without it, they also couldn’t feel joy. They didn’t remember their pre-earth life. If they hadn’t eaten the forbidden fruit, they would have lived like that forever and never had children. Mankind never would have been born or the world populated.

 

As we know, Adam and Eve succumbed to Satan’s temptations to eat the fruit and disobeyed God who had commanded them not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. As a consequence, they were separated from God’s presence physically and spiritually—an event we refer to as the Fall. They became mortal—just as we are—subject to sin, disease, all types of suffering, and ultimately death. But it wasn’t all bad because they could now feel great joy. “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” (2 Nephi 2:25) But as they were obedient to the Gospel of Jesus Christ Adam and Eve were able to receive God’s inspiration, revelation, and even visits from heavenly messengers.

 

 

Once out of the garden, they were able to progress and learn to become more like our Heavenly Father. In addition, they could have children, which meant the rest of God’s spirit children (all of us) could come to Earth, experience physical bodies, and be proven by our daily choices. Just like Adam and Eve, there are consequences to all our choices, good or bad. Lasting happiness and progression come from choosing to do what God wants us to do. The key word is “choosing.” Generally God does not step in and prevent us from making the poor choices Satan tempts us to make. He will, however, offer his love, divine guidance, and warnings when we open our heart to Him.

 

 

 

And re: Christ:

 

Your mistakes might be as simple as hurting your friend’s feelings, or a sin far more serious. Seeing the pain we’ve caused and feeling the misery of

remorse, shame and guilt can sometimes be overwhelming and devastating. We wonder if we can ever overcome our mistakes and feel the peace of being forgiven. We unequivocally can, because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and the process of repentance. We can confess our sins to God and ask His forgiveness. And he’s promised that He’ll “remember them no more” (Doctrine and Covenants 58:42). It works because Heavenly Father sent his son, Jesus Christ, to voluntarily suffer and pay for our sins and sorrows by atoning for them Himself. We can’t fully understand how Jesus suffered for our sins. But we know that in the Garden of Gethsemane, the weight of our sins caused Him such agony that He bled from every pore (Luke 22:39-44) . Later, as He hung upon the cross, Jesus willingly suffered painful death by one of the cruelest methods ever known (Alma 7:11).

 

However, His mental and spiritual anguish went well beyond the pains of the cross. The Savior tells us, “For behold, I . . . have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer . . . even as I” (Doctrine and Covenants 19:16–17).

In addition to asking God’s forgiveness, He also wants us to ask forgiveness of those we’ve harmed, see if we can repair the damage, and promise not to repeat the same mistakes. Then we can move forward feeling God’s love and the incredible peace and joy that come from being fully forgiven.

To make His Atonement fully effective in your life, you need to:

 

 

• Exercise faith in Him.
  
• Repent.
  
• Be baptized.
  
• Receive the Holy Ghost.
  
• Choose to follow His teachings for the rest of your life.
  

 

[SailorMom]

Thank you! That is exactly what I was asking....

I do remember that some faiths do not believe in "Original Sin' - but do believe in Jesus saving from sins in general....

[songbirdie]

LittleIzumi, what is your definition of original sin?

[DianeW88]

I'm also LDS and we view "original sin" quite differently than most other denominations. From LDS.org

 

"The result of our first parents’ transgression, “was banishment from the presence of God and bringing … physical death into the world. The majority … [of Christians] maintain that every child born into this world is tainted with ‘original sin,’ or partakes of Adam’s transgression in his birth.

 

All descendants of Adam and Eve inherit certain effects from the Fall, but because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ we are held accountable only for our own sins. We also believe that children who die before the age of accountability are “alive in Christ” (Moro. 8:12) and have no need of repentance or baptism (see Moro. 8:8–11)."

 

We do not believe that we are in any way tainted from Adam's choices in the Garden of Eden. We do not believe that a mere man can thwart the plan of God in any way and that what Adam did was not a mistake. He made the choice that allowed us to progress and ultimately return to our Father in Heaven.

 

To reinforce what has already been said:

 

"The Lord gave Adam and Eve commandments in the Garden of Eden, two of which were to multiply and replenish the earth (see Gen. 1:28) and to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (see Gen. 2:17). These two commandments were designed to place Adam and Eve in a position where they had to make a choice. The Lord said to Adam that if he wished to remain as he was in the garden, then he was not to eat the fruit, but if he desired to eat it and partake of death he was at liberty to do so.” 4 Faced with this dilemma, Adam and Eve chose death—both physical and spiritual—which opened the door for themselves and their posterity to gain knowledge and experience and to participate in the Father’s plan of happiness leading to eternal life."

 

So, perhaps it isn't just the concept of "original sin" that we view differently....it might be the whole purpose of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and their responsibilities to mankind in general. I don't know...how do other churches view this?

[LittleIzumi]

LittleIzumi, what is your definition of original sin?

 

Diane beat me to it! :D

[happyhappyjoyjoy]

Ok - First - this is a sincere question.

 

It just occurred to me a few days ago, and I've been debating asking - because I don't want to start a brawl on here.

 

Please, please, please - if this questions offends you in some way - understand that I honestly did not see a way it could be offensive (but I've said that before and been wrong - which is why I am saying this....) and am seriously interrested. Studying religion and its history is what I do and I am a history major.... so really - sincere. Keep in mind - I am asking for academic reasons and am not Christian so have no opinion either way, really.

 

 

So - this is for those of you who do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis:

 

If you do not beleive that Adam and Eve were actual, physical people, and that Adam and Eve brought sin into the world in the Garden of Eden, how is the concept of Original Sin explained in your denomination? Also - the need for Christ's salvation from sin?

 

 

I am not questioning your belief or sincerity or the validity of your faith, I've just never hear it explained.

:grouphug:

I don't know if I can help or not. I believe that the 'days' in Genesis are eras of time, and that it is possible for the Earth to be as old as carbon dating shows. Some would say that is not a literal interpretation and others would. I do believe that Adam and Eve were the first 2 people. If you'd like me to elaborate I will.

[SailorMom]

Well - it isn't so much about the YE beliefs or otherwise - more of,,, how (in your denomination) does Jesus, acting as savior from sins, come into play without Adam and Eve bringing original sin into the world.

 

I think I am understanding that perhaps some don't use the "original sin" idea - and believe it is the everyday sin that is the issue?

[LittleIzumi]

Well - it isn't so much about the YE beliefs or otherwise - more of,,, how (in your denomination) does Jesus, acting as savior from sins, come into play without Adam and Eve bringing original sin into the world.

 

I think I am understanding that perhaps some don't use the "original sin" idea - and believe it is the everyday sin that is the issue?

 

For LDS, yes. :)

[SailorMom]

For LDS, yes. :)

 

Very cool. Well - that's one denomination down - according to that list about 1000 to go ;)

[pfamilygal]

Huh. That is a very interesting view indeed. I'm kind of confused though as to how that view jives with the Genesis account in the Bible.

 

God created Adam and Eve and called it "good" (whole/complete) and yet they could not feel joy? They walked in fellowship with God and were unhappy? So sinning (disobeying God) was a good thing?

 

Considering that sin is what sent our Savior to the cross and separates us from God, how can that have been good?

 

I know that LDS and mainline EO/RC/Protestant Christians share many views, but this seems like a HUGE difference.

 

**

 

As to the original question, I am Protestant and do believe in an actual Adam and Eve, so I'm unhelpful in that respect.

Edited July 16, 2011 by pfamilygal

[SailorMom]

Huh. That is a very interesting view indeed. I'm kind of confused though as to how that view jives with the Bible.

 

God created Adam and Eve and called it "good" (whole/complete) and yet they could not feel joy? They walked in fellowship with God and were unhappy? So sinning (disobeying God) was a good thing?

 

Considering that sin is what sent our Savior to the cross and separates us from God, how can that have been good?

 

I know that LDS and mainline EO/RC/Protestant Christians share many views, but this seems like a HUGE difference.

 

 

Coming from a person who is not Christian - the LDS version seems to me as logical as any others I have heard (called a few people after I posted and asked them as well). So - let's all play nice :) I'd prefer this not to be a theological debate - although that could be a very interresting thread. I am afraid this thread will get closed if that happens.

[pfamilygal]

Coming from a person who is not Christian - the LDS version seems to me as logical as any others I have heard (called a few people after I posted and asked them as well). So - let's all play nice :) I'd prefer this not to be a theological debate - although that could be a very interresting thread. I am afraid this thread will get closed if that happens.

 

Oh, I wasn't trying to be rude or anything. It's constantly put forth on this board that the LDS believe the same things as other Christians. A difference in theology of sin seems like a big one. I'll butt out. :)

[SailorMom]

Oh, I wasn't trying to be rude or anything. It's constantly put forth on this board that the LDS believe the same things as other Christians. A difference in theology of sin seems like a big one. I'll butt out. :)

 

No problem :) You weren't being rude - I was afraid it would turn into something, though.

[LND1218]

I am so glad you asked this question. I have always wondered the same thing...

[LittleIzumi]

Huh. That is a very interesting view indeed. I'm kind of confused though as to how that view jives with the Genesis account in the Bible.

 

God created Adam and Eve and called it "good" (whole/complete) and yet they could not feel joy? They walked in fellowship with God and were unhappy? So sinning (disobeying God) was a good thing?

 

Considering that sin is what sent our Savior to the cross and separates us from God, how can that have been good?

 

 

 

It's not that they were unhappy. It's that there wasn't "good" and "evil" yet. They hadn't partaken of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil yet so that part of existence wasn't in effect for them. God of course knew good & evil, so he could declare their creation good, but Good & Evil were concepts alien to those in the Garden of Eden. God gave them a choice--stay in the Garden but remain in the same state forever, or partake, leave the garden, and fulfill the commandment to multiply & replenish the earth. Each choice had consequences but they had free will to choose. Free will is HUGE in LDS theology.

 

From one of our Apostles, “To bring the plan of happiness to fruition [fulfillment], God issued to Adam and Eve the first commandment ever given to mankind. It was a commandment to beget children. A law was explained to them. Should they eat from ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ (Genesis 2:17), their bodies would change; mortality and eventual death would come upon them. But partaking of that fruit was prerequisite to their parenthood”

[gardenmom5]

for the Earth to be as old as carbon dating shows. .

 

I was reading a book on a totally unrelated subject, and the topic of galactic cosmic rays and their integral part of the producting of carbon 14 was mentioned. well . . . the number of gcr's that reach the earth varies according to the magnetic field strength of the sun, so the levels' of carbon 14 in objects also varies. this was really driven home when some pharoh was carbon dated as younger than his son . . . . . oops

 

(just an aside - CERN has been doing several increasingly larger studies showing that those same gcr's are integral in the development of clouds in the mid-atomosphere - so cloud cover varies according to magnetic field strength.)

 

really quite fascinating. (I'm not saying the earth was or was not created in six days as we know them, just that even carbon dating has its own issues.)

Edited July 16, 2011 by gardenmom5

[pfamilygal]

It's not that they were unhappy. It's that there wasn't "good" and "evil" yet. They hadn't partaken of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil yet so that part of existence wasn't in effect for them. God of course knew good & evil, so he could declare their creation good, but Good & Evil were concepts alien to those in the Garden of Eden. God gave them a choice--stay in the Garden but remain in the same state forever, or partake, leave the garden, and fulfill the commandment to multiply & replenish the earth. Each choice had consequences but they had free will to choose. Free will is HUGE in LDS theology.

 

From one of our Apostles, “To bring the plan of happiness to fruition [fulfillment], God issued to Adam and Eve the first commandment ever given to mankind. It was a commandment to beget children. A law was explained to them. Should they eat from ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ (Genesis 2:17), their bodies would change; mortality and eventual death would come upon them. But partaking of that fruit was prerequisite to their parenthoodâ€

 

 

Okay, I gotta start a spin-off thread. This is confusing to me.

[tntgoodwin]

I believe in a YE situation with literal 24 hour days, but have no issue with whatever it is called that believes the "days" may be eras of millions of years or more. Very interesting question, OP!

[Dobela]

How's this for another view: We (not LDS) believe that Adam and Eve were real live people. However, they are not the ones who brought sin in to the world - Satan is. A& E were beings of free will and could have ignored the serpent and obeyed God . However, they did sin first as they chose to go against the word of God and follow the lies of the serpent.

[Mrs Mungo]

I am on my phone @ guitar, will have to answer later.

[gardenmom5]

How's this for another view: We (not LDS) believe that Adam and Eve were real live people. However, they are not the ones who brought sin in to the world - Satan is. A& E were beings of free will and could have ignored the serpent and obeyed God . However, they did sin first as they chose to go against the word of God and follow the lies of the serpent.

 

:iagree:that's basically the same as LDS. some semantics may vary, but the gist is the same. satan came and tempted Eve. she ate. she fed adam. But, in LDS theology, they would have been naive (knowing no joy for they knew no pain - and having no children) in the garden of Eden without partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. no one knows how many times satan tempted them before they partook.

 

- one of our greatest gifts is we have agency. the power to choose for ourselves. (though we do not choose the consequences - there are good and bad (pro/con) for everything and we only control those by the choices we make.)

[Little Nyssa]

You might look at the threads about Original Sin vs Ancestral Sin on the Exploring Orthodoxy social group.

I tend to think that those who don't believe in Adam, Eve, and ancestral sin are those who also think of Jesus as more of a moral teacher, not a savior.

[WishboneDawn]

It's good to remember that Original Sin is the notion of Augustine of Hippo. He certainly came to that notion from his readings of the Bible but if you'd asked Christians about it before he arrived on the scene the answer would have been, "Huh?"

 

I don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I see the garden account in Genesis as an attempt to explain why humans are capable of sin. Why, if the Ancient Hebrew god was good and created us in His image for instance, we are capable of such horrible acts. I think it's a very insightful piece on what constitutes sin and what is required to sin, namely knowledge of good and evil. I think the garden story makes a case that without that understanding, there is no sin so I also reject the idea that everyone is capable of sin from birth. I guess I view Original Sin as an intellectual challenge to turn over but not a strict Christian doctrine. I don't believe in Satan.

 

I'm not exactly sure of the CoE position on Original sin is but it's not quite as important as with other churches. We don't have a strict doctrine you must adhere to. It's reason, tradition and scripture with us and the continual balancing acts and discussions that go on to find that balance.

[SailorMom]

It's good to remember that Original Sin is the notion of Augustine of Hippo. He certainly came to that notion from his readings of the Bible but if you'd asked Christians about it before he arrived on the scene the answer would have been, "Huh?"

 

I don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I see the garden account in Genesis as an attempt to explain why humans are capable of sin. Why, if the Ancient Hebrew god was good and created us in His image for instance, we are capable of such horrible acts. I think it's a very insightful piece on what constitutes sin and what is required to sin, namely knowledge of good and evil. I think the garden story makes a case that without that understanding, there is no sin so I also reject the idea that everyone is capable of sin from birth. I guess I view Original Sin as an intellectual challenge to turn over but not a strict Christian doctrine. I don't believe in Satan.

 

I'm not exactly sure of the CoE position on Original sin is but it's not quite as important as with other churches. We don't have a strict doctrine you must adhere to. It's reason, tradition and scripture with us and the continual balancing acts and discussions that go on to find that balance.

 

This is very similar to the answer I recieved from a United Methodist..... this specific Methodist looks at the Bible as being allegorical - almost completely.

[WishboneDawn]

This is very similar to the answer I recieved from a United Methodist..... this specific Methodist looks at the Bible as being allegorical - almost completely.

 

I'm not sure I'd make that claim. I tend to think of the Bible as a collection of genres: myth, legends, liturgy, poems, epistles...Some is likely completely allegorical, some is legendary and contains some history with a lot of embellishment and some are quite straight-forward historical documents (Paul's epistles for instance). To sort it out I'm very much a Biblical criticism kind of gal and fall in line with moderate-to-liberal views that you'd see in Christian and secular Biblical scholarship.

[justamouse]

Warning: wine has been imbibed.

 

I believe that Genesis is God telling is the story of His covenants with His people, not a literal interpretation for science.

 

Sin is ego. Sin is us making choices that separate us from God. As we became who we are becoming, there was a time where we, as simple creatures, were at perfect peace with our existence. We didn't question anything, it just was. There's joy in ignorance. But at some point, our brains evolved, and the ego came into being. The ego is what controls pride, and with pride, sin came into the world.

[SailorMom]

Warning: wine has been imbibed.

.

Sin is ego. Sin is us making choices that separate us from God. As we became who we are becoming, there was a time where we, as simple creatures, were at perfect peace with our existence. We didn't question anything, it just was. There's joy in ignorance. But at some point, our brains evolved, and the ego came into being. The ego is what controls pride, and with pride, sin came into the world.

 

 

You and us deists would get along well :)

ETA: I'd actually get along well with all of you :) - but I was just saying that that is how the deists I know view sin as well.

[Mrs Mungo]

Warning: wine has been imbibed.

 

I believe that Genesis is God telling is the story of His covenants with His people, not a literal interpretation for science.

 

Sin is ego. Sin is us making choices that separate us from God. As we became who we are becoming, there was a time where we, as simple creatures, were at perfect peace with our existence. We didn't question anything, it just was. There's joy in ignorance. But at some point, our brains evolved, and the ego came into being. The ego is what controls pride, and with pride, sin came into the world.

 

I agree with much of what has been said. To *me* believing in Genesis as allegorical has nothing to do with believing in Christ as a savior? Do you believe Christ was literally a lamb? No, it's a symbol. He was the ultimate sacrifice, the ultimate lamb, so that sacrifice was no longer necessary. There are lots of allegories in the Bible. It's not in conflict for me.

 

eta: Eating from the tree of knowledge was sort of growing up. God sort of sat them down and said, "look, you're going to die, these are the ways of the world." You see reflections of this in other works like Gilgamesh, that's why we read them. Once you become "civilized" or once you have "knowledge" you cannot go back to being wild or naive.

 

And yes, I believe there was death before the fall. The death of a man with a soul is something different.

 

edited again to add: This isn't an unusual view even among theologists or mainline Christians. The view of it as literal truth hasn't always been the dominant view.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[happyhappyjoyjoy]

Well - it isn't so much about the YE beliefs or otherwise - more of,,, how (in your denomination) does Jesus, acting as savior from sins, come into play without Adam and Eve bringing original sin into the world.

 

I think I am understanding that perhaps some don't use the "original sin" idea - and believe it is the everyday sin that is the issue?

 

I don't qualify, bec I do believe Adam and Eve brought original sin into the world.:)

[SailorMom]

I don't qualify, bec I do believe Adam and Eve brought original sin into the world.:)

 

Well - I didn't need to ask you guys :) That one's pretty straight forward.

Of course, even there - ton of differences between denominations....

[WishboneDawn]

You see reflections of this in other works like Gilgamesh, that's why we read them.

 

There are some books I think should almost be companions to the Bible. Gilgamesh is one of those. Some elements are almost proto-Biblical.

[justamouse]

You and us deists would get along well :)

ETA: I'd actually get along well with all of you :) - but I was just saying that that is how the deists I know view sin as well.

 

You and us Catholics would get along well. *g*

 

They can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the EO version of original sin is much the same.

 

 

eta: Eating from the tree of knowledge was sort of growing up. God sort of sat them down and said, "look, you're going to die, these are the ways of the world." You see reflections of this in other works like Gilgamesh, that's why we read them. Once you become "civilized" or once you have "knowledge" you cannot go back to being wild or naive.

 

And yes, I believe there was death before the fall. The death of a man with a soul is something different.

 

edited again to add: This isn't an unusual view even among theologists or mainline Christians. The view of it as literal truth hasn't always been the dominant view.

 

Awesome. Yup.

[Onceuponatime]

Warning: wine has been imbibed.

 

I believe that Genesis is God telling is the story of His covenants with His people, not a literal interpretation for science.

 

Sin is ego. Sin is us making choices that separate us from God. As we became who we are becoming, there was a time where we, as simple creatures, were at perfect peace with our existence. We didn't question anything, it just was. There's joy in ignorance. But at some point, our brains evolved, and the ego came into being. The ego is what controls pride, and with pride, sin came into the world.

 

I believe something similar.

 

My church does not teach a Genesis doctrine but lets each person come to their own conclusions. The most vocal tend to espouse young earth. :)

 

I've come to the personal conclusion that Genesis is more than a story, and more than an allegory, but not literal historical fact. It appears to be full of truths about the world and humans in a way that many pure allegories are not. For example: modern DNA studies show that modern humans did descend from one particular man and one particular woman, but they didn't actually live at the same time. The order in which life appeared on earth in Genesis is very close to the order that modern science suggests. We are literally made of the dust of the earth. The developement of language, tools, musical instruments, they are all there in the first few chapters, and told in a very unembellished way. The developement of self-consciousness and guilt with the necessity of an act of sacrifice to soothe the conscience and take away the guilt seems to be natural.

 

One thing I read recently that impressed me was the implication that man's exile from the garden was not called a punishment in Genesis. It was said to be so that man would not eat of the tree of life and live forever in his current state of pain and toil. This would seem to be an acceptable explanation to the ancients as to why humans must die and evidence of God's care. When we die we enter God's Sabbath or a state of rest. The Sabbath rest in this life would have been to remind mankind that the pain and toil will not last forever, to give us hope.