Original Sin--Born with the sin nature...

[SeekerSeeking]

I am writing a book of fiction.
In it, one of my characters does NOT believe in 'original sin.' He believes in 'original love.' That we are conceived in God's love--no matter who your parents are. That we have a beautiful soul and the choice to act righteously or not. And some of the not acting righteously is normal as one finds their way.

How do you feel about 'original sin'? That is my question....

 

[Ren]

Hi @SeekerSeeking ! First of all, it's really great news to hear that you're writing a book. It takes so much time, effort, and solitude to achieve such a thing. Good on you and I hope you carry it through to fruition.

Do you mean to say that in the story, only one person does not believe in original sin? Jeez, that's not many people. Personally, I do not share the religious understanding of original sin, but maybe what could be called a mythological understanding of it. Hegel says that religions and their 'stories' express deep existential truths about the human condition in symbolic language. Humans feel the need to express these truths, but lack the ability to do so in logical-literal language. Nevertheless, studying religious language, imagery and myth can help us uncover those deep truths and human preoccupations.

Original sin could be seen as a corollary of human freedom. By disrespecting God's rule, we negate his teleology, in a sense: we refuse to find comfort in the simple complying with what our destiny out to have been as pure, 'perfectly moral' expressions of God's essence. By refusing to comply with the dictates of God, we sin - but by sinning, we also exercise our freedom, and the recording of the myth reveals that we are actually aware that sin is a function of freedom. I suppose I'm just rehearsing the paradox of free will: if free will exists, then sin must exist also. It's not good to sin, but it's good to have the possibility to sin, because it gives value to the opposite decision to do good instead.

Of course, this is operating from within a paradigm of morality which some philosophers, such as Nietzsche, would have contested with the utmost ferocity. Perhaps it's a self-castigating human absurdity to think about morality in terms of 'doing good' and 'doing evil', and thus equally an absurdity to believe in the very concept of 'sin'. If God is dead, then there is no sin to implicilty defend oneself against at God's tribunal. The human will to power stands supreme, answerable only to itself, and should always seek a condition of overwhelming health.

What are you guys' thoughts? Would love to hear them. If you got time to waste, I've written some rather esoteric aphorisms related to the topic.

 

[Skarekrow]

I find the concept of original sin to be silly.
If that is so, then you also have no free will.
Supposedly we do says the Bible...the veil was placed there so we forget where we came from and therefore it doesn’t influence us otherwise it would interfere with our supposed free will.
If original sin is true then our lives are fated and we have no control over them at all.
I find it hard to look at a newborn baby and say - this one is predetermined to go to Hell.
What kind of justness is that?

 

[SeekerSeeking]

Ren, thank you for answering; you have given me much to think about and research. I only took Philosophy 101 in college and have probably forgotten most of that.


My book takes place on an island in the Pacific owned by a millionaire and peopled by many scientists who can go into the gray areas of science that are outlawed in most countries. The two main scientists are unlikely friends. One is a cultural Jew with no religious ideas. His friend scientist is a Southern Baptist, very fundamental, who goes so he can start a chapel on the island. They each have a son, and one of the sons is interested in and investigating religion. He finds that most say they believe in Free Will, but have no idea what that really means…


Maybe my question is “Do you believe in humankind’s status as a fallen state due to original sin (Adam eating the fruit)?”


So the paradox of free will is that if it really exists, then sin has to also exist. So humans are faced with a choice—and don’t most of us learn through many of our bad choices? Maybe Nietzsche is right—maybe it is not so black and white as ‘good and evil.’ Maybe it’s us finding our way back to our ‘loving’ nature.


This book is taking me deep into thought and research, most of which will not make it into the book. But I have to know what my characters think.


So “Do you believe in humankind’s status as a fallen state due to original sin (Adam eating the fruit)”


Or are we born with a blank slate to write upon as we learn.

 

[SeekerSeeking]

Skarekrow, thank you for your answer.

So, we are all just trying to find our way home? I find Original Sin silly also, but my character is struggling with it. Or to be more precise, he is struggling with the Baptist belief that may is born with a fallen nature because of original sin.

Reincarnation also believes there is a veil between our last lives and this one, so it doesn’t interfere with our choices. Yet, Karma sets us up and dings us for them.

You said, “If original sin is true then our lives are fated, and we have no control over them at all.” Is that because we would have a sinful nature and be inclined to choose sinful stuff? If we are born without a sinful nature and make bad choices, what is that?

I find newborn babies innocent and not going to Hell, also. However, living in a small, rural pocket of the south introduces me to many fine people who will see that beautiful baby and think innocence, but the minute that baby turns 18 robs a store, and someone gets killed, then that kid needs to go to death row. It confuses me.

My new question is “Do you believe in humankind’s status as a fallen state due to original sin (Adam eating the fruit)” (Southern Baptist belief)

 

[Disguised]

I think it's always a matter of choice. Some question the ideas of right and wrong to the limit of committing crimes and might get labeled for life for that. But if you have had an experience of doing something very bad and turned it in your mind to be an acceptable thing, not realizing you have done something horribly wrong, you might broaden that view by doing more of bad things. I've met kids that seem plain cruel and wondered why. They question everything they are told to be right and what to do. They lack authority they'd respect for the sake of guidance to the extent of doing everything they aren't allowed. Once consequences come though, they might not do it again. Or they might as well do it better next time.

I'm not sure what to take from this but I think there are some things that simply can't be changed. It's not predetermination as there is always a chance for learning and changing course. Some just don't.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I do not believe in original sin. Only in people acting poorly or selfishly.
I do not believe in any religious gods though so perhaps this means nothing.

 

[Ren]

@SeekerSeeking Glad my words were helpful! Regarding your guiding question, I really believe it all depends if you mean it literally or symbolically/mythologically.

If taken literally, even the most profound commitment to philosophical tolerance won’t stop me from thinking that the statement is nonsensical. Why exactly would we be fallen? Because some God mentioned in some human-written book that humans were fallen? This is silly. I believe not a single rational argument can be made in favour of it, though I respect religious people who perform the “leap of faith” and choose to believe outside of reason, through the power of revelation for example. This is the only way to justify the possibility of such a belief. Otherwise it is just fanciful in a very silly way - at least that's my conviction.

If taken symbolically: well, I suppose I have explained the symbolic interpretation (to which I subscribe) above. The idea of being free can be very violent and anxiety inducing (“nauseous”, Sartre would say) because it creates the great pressure of responsibility for one’s actions on the person performing the actions. Maybe this is a universal truth that all humans experience; and maybe the Bible has captured this truth in metaphor through original sin. God would then function as the attractive conviction that we exist without freedom. And original sin would function as the realisation that we are in fact free.

What has always struck me about the determinism of fallen-ness is how cozy it is, if you think about it. Sure, we are supposed to work towards improving our degraded moral state; but since we will never qualitatively leap back into purity, what would be the consequences if we were to not make any effort towards improving ourselves? Perhaps not many. Therefore the determinism of the religious view does not really encourage us to be responsible. I find this view and moral outlook not only unattractive, but counter-intuitive. Being able to actually take responsibility for one's actions is likely a precondition of acting morally. At least that's how I see things. I'm sure religiously minded people will disagree with me.

 

[SeekerSeeking]

I was a 10 year old who came from a background of spiritualism. In San Francisco, my mother and I would go to church on Sunday--which was a night for the channel to impart messages to members of the audience. Wed. was the night for seance. I went from that world to a small pocket of the rural south--whre the Baptist church told me I was going to hell in a hand-basket (I call myself a 'recovering' Baptist--and only had 3 years of it).

So, being an outsider and someone not brought up in the religion. I saw it differently. The Bible story of the Garden of Eden and Free Will has always given me problems. God made this wonderful garden--it was said to be huge. Then God called attention to the tree of good and evil. Out of all the many trees--God pointed to THAT one and said don't eat it or you will **(***((). I say **(***(() because the Bible says 'death' and according to the Bible nothing died in that Garden. So those kids, (I see them as big two-year-olds) were like put in a warehouse of candy and then taken to a particular bunch of candy and told not to eat THAT candy. Oh no no no.... How could they not? Weren't they 'set up' to eat that fruit? How could they understand the consequence of it without knowing what a consequence is....

That did not make me popular in Sunday School--and got me in trouble at the home I was living in----and made me feel like a space alien==how could no one else have these questions? Now, I'm glad I wasn't 'raised up' in the church. It was hard enough to break away after 3 years.... but now I feel free, free, free--not to be awful things, but to be the best version of me each day. And when I fail, instead of beating my chest with the guilt, I just get up the next day and try again...

Don't know why I'm saying all this...except I still have too many questions....

 

[Ren]

because the Bible says 'death' and according to the Bible nothing died in that Garden. So those kids, (I see them as big two-year-olds) were like put in a warehouse of candy and then taken to a particular bunch of candy and told not to eat THAT candy. Oh no no no.... How could they not? Weren't they 'set up' to eat that fruit? How could they understand the consequence of it without knowing what a consequence is....

Thanks for sharing this. In relation to original sin and the loss of immortality... I'm wondering. Is the reality of death such a bad thing? Maybe the guarantee of never dying is what would keep us in a state of being perpetual two-year olds (not that being a two-year old is a bad thing, it's certainly pretty cool in some respects.)

"If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then I will be free to become myself." Martin Heidegger.

 

[Disguised]

Thanks for sharing this. In relation to original sin and the loss of immortality... I'm wondering. Is the reality of death such a bad thing? Maybe the guarantee of never dying is what would keep us in a state of being perpetual two-year olds (not that being a two-year old is a bad thing, it's certainly pretty cool in some respects.)

"If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then I will be free to become myself." Martin Heidegger.

I've started to question if life itself is rather meaningless in a certain sense so what is there to be afraid of? I have my own reasons to believe a soul will go on and that certainly is important, but this life itself isn't on a larger scale. It's a an inevitable process. And I do find myself rather childish when looking at my actions sometimes.

I don't mean that you shouldn't appreciate life that you have been given now, but that there is no reason to be scared of losing it. To live and learn is duty and to die is a mere part of it. Better make it for a good cause.

 

[Ren]

I agree @Disguised , I think there can be relief in acknowledging the meaninglessness of life, because in a way it's tantamount to saying, "you are free to create your own path, your own meaning".

 

[Skarekrow]

Skarekrow, thank you for your answer.

So, we are all just trying to find our way home? I find Original Sin silly also, but my character is struggling with it. Or to be more precise, he is struggling with the Baptist belief that may is born with a fallen nature because of original sin.

Reincarnation also believes there is a veil between our last lives and this one, so it doesn’t interfere with our choices. Yet, Karma sets us up and dings us for them.

You said, “If original sin is true then our lives are fated, and we have no control over them at all.” Is that because we would have a sinful nature and be inclined to choose sinful stuff? If we are born without a sinful nature and make bad choices, what is that?

I find newborn babies innocent and not going to Hell, also. However, living in a small, rural pocket of the south introduces me to many fine people who will see that beautiful baby and think innocence, but the minute that baby turns 18 robs a store, and someone gets killed, then that kid needs to go to death row. It confuses me.

My new question is “Do you believe in humankind’s status as a fallen state due to original sin (Adam eating the fruit)” (Southern Baptist belief)

Firstly, I would encourage you to look into the actual interpretation of “Hell”.
It never was in the Bible at all.
The original words were “Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna, and Sheol.”, all with different meanings, but none meaning eternal torture in boiling feces.
The word “Hell” is Norse is origin and comes from the niece of Odin, who's name is/was “Hel” one “L”...she was the ruler of the underworld where ALL spirits went...Hades was were ALL spirits went...Gehenna was a burning trash heap outside of Jerusalem which is now a park - so can literally stroll through Hell should you feel inclined lol....Sheol, means pit or grave...and Tartarus was the prison for the Titans created by Zeus.
In the middle age the word was synonymous with a root cellar as it was usually dug underground.
It wasn’t until our good friend (or is it fiend?) Dante wrote his torturous vision of “Hell” and the tortures that await for eternity came into being.

As for the apple in the garden - again...it’s a seriously flawed bit of reasoning.
There were actually two trees but only one was forbidden...there was the Tree of Life (cool, eat it), and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (forbidden).
Most like to leave that detail out.
There is also an entirely different version of events in the Gnostic gospels that I would also encourage you to read if this is a problem for you.
(Gnostic version - God forbids them from eating the apple - “Lest they become Gods like us.”
Who is “Us” exactly, your guess is as good as mine.)
Anyhow.
God created it all right?
So God also created the garden.
He made the two special trees, forbade them from eating from one.
But God is also all knowing yes?
Has power and dominion over all things yes?
Is supposed to be kind and just and compassionate yes?
The vengeful God of the Old Testament was supposed to be superseded by a new law of love - and love one another, no more and eye for an eye.
So by those same ideas, God created “Hell” as well and controls it all too yes?
Here is the problem with torture being eternal - there will come a moment in the vast span of time when no matter what your sin(s) are, eventually the punishment will outweigh the crime and at that moment “Hell” and God also become unjust.
If God is all knowing then he also knew that they would eat the apples - in fact one would have to assume that it was indeed His plan all along.
Otherwise God is not all knowing, he was tricked along with Adam and Eve by Satan - who was also created by God and is ultimately under His control as well.
You see, the Bible is quite illogical in many areas....the story of Adam and Eve I wouldn’t take as anything more than a parable...but it’s an interesting one nonetheless.
So why put the tree there at all?
Why tell them they can’t eat from it knowing that they will?
It’s either God is not all-knowing, or it was the plan all along.
Either way, why would anyone punish you or me or anyone else for a “sin” committed who knows how long ago (if it happened at all) and had it not happened - the rest of the world and people wouldn’t exist.
As far as reincarnation carrying over sins or karma from a past life, I guess that depends on your beliefs.
Imho, if we do carry over “karma” it’s because it was our own choice to carry it over - to work on areas of our Self that need to be refined.
So again...if original sin is true...there is no justification to punish someone because it’s fated but also especially since Jesus was sent to eliminate those sins.
Jesus was sent to “save the whole world”...not just a few Baptists, or Mormons, or Evangelicals, or Muslims, or Buddhists, etc.
Right before Jesus died on the cross what did he say?
“Father forgive them”
These are the people who are killing Jesus - probably the number one WORST sin ever possibly committed.
And he asked they be forgiven.
If Jesus were sent to save us all - then he failed, plain and simple if we look at it through the lens of most organized religions of the present.
Or you can look at it as - he did not fail, he sacrificed himself and took on the sin of us all - “the whole world”, not just a select few.
The stories of the Bible have been omitted, changed, words added, etc.
The Apocryphal stories that were removed also have the underlying theme of - Heaven being inside you and everyone else always.
That you don’t need a go-between like a pastor or priest or pope to reach it - all one needs to do is turn inward.

I was a 10 year old who came from a background of spiritualism. In San Francisco, my mother and I would go to church on Sunday--which was a night for the channel to impart messages to members of the audience. Wed. was the night for seance. I went from that world to a small pocket of the rural south--whre the Baptist church told me I was going to hell in a hand-basket (I call myself a 'recovering' Baptist--and only had 3 years of it).

So, being an outsider and someone not brought up in the religion. I saw it differently. The Bible story of the Garden of Eden and Free Will has always given me problems. God made this wonderful garden--it was said to be huge. Then God called attention to the tree of good and evil. Out of all the many trees--God pointed to THAT one and said don't eat it or you will **(***((). I say **(***(() because the Bible says 'death' and according to the Bible nothing died in that Garden. So those kids, (I see them as big two-year-olds) were like put in a warehouse of candy and then taken to a particular bunch of candy and told not to eat THAT candy. Oh no no no.... How could they not? Weren't they 'set up' to eat that fruit? How could they understand the consequence of it without knowing what a consequence is....

That did not make me popular in Sunday School--and got me in trouble at the home I was living in----and made me feel like a space alien==how could no one else have these questions? Now, I'm glad I wasn't 'raised up' in the church. It was hard enough to break away after 3 years.... but now I feel free, free, free--not to be awful things, but to be the best version of me each day. And when I fail, instead of beating my chest with the guilt, I just get up the next day and try again...

Don't know why I'm saying all this...except I still have too many questions....

So again...we know for a fact that books were taken out of the Bible, that stories were not put down into actual writing hundreds if not thousands of years after said events took place.
Here is one such omission which gives a entirely other view of this story.

Adam and Eve​

Just as Adam and Eve are regarded as central characters in the Christian creation myth, they are equally as important in that of the Gnostics. As mentioned in previous articles, the creation of the world according to Gnostic tradition is an account of the world created not by the True God, but by a false god.

As Adam and Eve were created and placed in the Garden of Eden in Genesis, the same has been done in Gnostic scripture.

However, the demiurge is responsible for the placement of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
The demiurge has created the fleshly bodies to entrap the spirits of Adam and Eve.

Adam is placed under a spell of ignorance and put to sleep by the false god.
Eve is placed next to him, and she commands Adam to awaken.

When Adam sees Eve, he believes that she is his creator.

The demiurge wanted to keep Adam and Eve ignorant; forever worshipping him.
The Gnostics believe that the demiurge was posing as the false god, thus keeping Adam and Eve under his spell of ignorance.

As long as Adam and Eve believed that he was the only god, they would worship him forever.

The serpent is regarded as an evil figure in traditional Christian stories, but to the Gnostics, the serpent is the hero!
The Gnostic text teaches that as the demiurge tells Adam and Eve that they may help themselves to anything the Garden, they are to stay away from the Tree of Knowledge.

As Adam and Eve listen to the serpent, their eyes are opened, and the spell of ignorance is broken forever.
Because they chose to listen to the serpent, Adam and Eve no longer worship the demiurge, but recognize that there is the True God, and he was not the creator of the evil, imperfect, material world.

Adam and Eve gave birth to two children, Seth and Norea.
The descendents of Seth regard themselves as Sethians, those that have been blessed with the gnosis.


Many also believe that the Tree was not a tree at all and certainly not an apple.
There is a good theory that the fruit was in fact some kind of magic mushroom - as many very old Christian murals show images that make it pretty obvious.

Some even think that Jesus didn’t exist, but was the (hidden) human representation of the entheogenic mushrooms said to open your mind(s) to a deeper understanding of the universe and our connection to all things including God/Source/etc.

I’ll leave it at that for you to ponder.
Let’s talk more.
Take it easy!
Much love!

 

[SeekerSeeking]

Wow, a lot of food for thought! Yes, I do not think death is a bad thing--it's just a thing. A fact for us on this planet. I think if one is afraid to die, they are afraid to live...

Thanks all!

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

Firstly, I would encourage you to look into the actual interpretation of “Hell”.
It never was in the Bible at all.
The original words were “Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna, and Sheol.”, all with different meanings, but none meaning eternal torture in boiling feces.
The word “Hell” is Norse is origin and comes from the niece of Odin, who's name is/was “Hel” one “L”...she was the ruler of the underworld where ALL spirits went...Hades was were ALL spirits went...Gehenna was a burning trash heap outside of Jerusalem which is now a park - so can literally stroll through Hell should you feel inclined lol....Sheol, means pit or grave.
In the middle age the word was synonymous with a root cellar as it was usually dug underground.
It wasn’t until our good friend (or is it fiend?) Dante wrote his torturous vision of “Hell” and the tortures that await for eternity came into being.

As for the apple in the garden - again...it’s a seriously flawed bit of reasoning.
There were actually two trees but only one was forbidden...there was the Tree of Life (cool, eat it), and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (forbidden).
Most like to leave that detail out.
There is also an entirely different version of events in the Gnostic gospels that I would also encourage you to read if this is a problem for you.
(Gnostic version - God forbids them from eating the apple - “Lest they become Gods like us.”
Who is “Us” exactly, your guess is as good as mine.)
Anyhow.
God created it all right?
So God also created the garden.
He made the two special trees, forbade them from eating from one.
But God is also all knowing yes?
Has power and dominion over all things yes?
Is supposed to be kind and just and compassionate yes?
The vengeful God of the Old Testament was supposed to be superseded by a new law of love - and love one another, no more and eye for an eye.
So by those same ideas, God created “Hell” as well and controls it all too yes?
Here is the problem with torture being eternal - there will come a moment in the vast span of time when no matter what your sin(s) are, eventually the punishment will outweigh the crime and at that moment “Hell” and God also become unjust.
If God is all knowing then he also knew that they would eat the apples - in fact one would have to assume that it was indeed His plan all along.
Otherwise God is not all knowing, he was tricked along with Adam and Eve by Satan - who was also created by God and is ultimately under His control as well.
You see, the Bible is quite illogical in many areas....the story of Adam and Eve I wouldn’t take as anything more than a parable...but it’s an interesting one nonetheless.
So why put the tree there at all?
Why tell them they can’t eat from it knowing that they will?
It’s either God is not all-knowing, or it was the plan all along.
Either way, why would anyone punish you or me or anyone else for a “sin” committed who knows how long ago (if it happened at all) and had it not happened - the rest of the world and people wouldn’t exist.
As far as reincarnation carrying over sins or karma from a past life, I guess that depends on your beliefs.
Imho, if we do carry over “karma” it’s because it was our own choice to carry it over - to work on areas of our Self that need to be refined.
So again...if original sin is true...there is no justification to punish someone because it’s fated but also especially since Jesus was sent to eliminate those sins.
Jesus was sent to “save the whole world”...not just a few Baptists, or Mormons, or Evangelicals, or Muslims, or Buddhists, etc.
Right before Jesus died on the cross what did he say?
“Father forgive them”
These are the people who are killing Jesus - probably the number one WORST sin ever possibly committed.
And he asked they be forgiven.
If Jesus were sent to save us all - then he failed, plain and simple if we look at it through the lens of most organized religions of the present.
Or you can look at it as - he did not fail, he sacrificed himself and took on the sin of us all - “the whole world”, not just a select few.
The stories of the Bible have been omitted, changed, words added, etc.
The Apocryphal stories that were removed also have the underlying theme of - Heaven being inside you and everyone else always.
That you don’t need a go-between like a pastor or priest or pope to reach it - all one needs to do is turn inward.



So again...we know for a fact that books were taken out of the Bible, that stories were not put down into actual writing hundreds if not thousands of years after said events took place.
Here is one such omission which gives a entirely other view of this story.

Adam and Eve​

Just as Adam and Eve are regarded as central characters in the Christian creation myth, they are equally as important in that of the Gnostics. As mentioned in previous articles, the creation of the world according to Gnostic tradition is an account of the world created not by the True God, but by a false god.

As Adam and Eve were created and placed in the Garden of Eden in Genesis, the same has been done in Gnostic scripture.

However, the demiurge is responsible for the placement of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
The demiurge has created the fleshly bodies to entrap the spirits of Adam and Eve.

Adam is placed under a spell of ignorance and put to sleep by the false god.
Eve is placed next to him, and she commands Adam to awaken.

When Adam sees Eve, he believes that she is his creator.

The demiurge wanted to keep Adam and Eve ignorant; forever worshipping him.
The Gnostics believe that the demiurge was posing as the false god, thus keeping Adam and Eve under his spell of ignorance.

As long as Adam and Eve believed that he was the only god, they would worship him forever.

The serpent is regarded as an evil figure in traditional Christian stories, but to the Gnostics, the serpent is the hero!
The Gnostic text teaches that as the demiurge tells Adam and Eve that they may help themselves to anything the Garden, they are to stay away from the Tree of Knowledge.

As Adam and Eve listen to the serpent, their eyes are opened, and the spell of ignorance is broken forever.
Because they chose to listen to the serpent, Adam and Eve no longer worship the demiurge, but recognize that there is the True God, and he was not the creator of the evil, imperfect, material world.

Adam and Eve gave birth to two children, Seth and Norea.
The descendents of Seth regard themselves as Sethians, those that have been blessed with the gnosis.


Many also believe that the Tree was not a tree at all and certainly not an apple.
There is a good theory that the fruit was in fact some kind of magic mushroom - as many very old Christian murals show images that make it pretty obvious.

Some even think that Jesus didn’t exist, but was the (hidden) human representation of the entheogenic mushrooms said to open your mind(s) to a deeper understanding of the universe and our connection to all things including God/Source/etc.

I’ll leave it at that for you to ponder.
Let’s talk more.
Take it easy!
Much love!

I can add some stuff to think about too! My perspective is Eastern Orthodox Christianity. It's important to understand that Christianity is supposed to be panentheistic, God indwells in all things.

From Orthodoxwiki:
"The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have a doctrine called panentheism to describe the relationship between the Uncreated (God, who is omnipotent, eternal, and constant) and His creation that bears surface similarities with the panentheism described above but maintains a critical distinction.

Most specifically, these Churches teach that God is not the "watchmaker God" or mechanical God of philosophy found in Western European Enlightenment. Likewise, they teach that God is not the "stage magician God" who only shows up when performing miracles. Instead, the teaching of both these Churches is that God is not merely necessary to have created the universe, but that His active presence is necessary in some way for every bit of creation, from smallest to greatest, to continue to exist at all. That is, God's energies maintain all things and all beings, even if those beings have explicitly rejected Him. His love of creation is such that he will not withdraw His presence, which would be the ultimate form of slaughter, not merely imposing death but ending existence, altogether. By this token, the entirety of creation is sanctified, and thus no part of creation can be considered innately evil. This does not deny the existence of evil in a fallen universe, only that it is not an innate property of creation.

This Orthodox Christian panentheism is distinct from a fundamentalist panentheism in that it maintains an ontological gulf or distance between the created and the Uncreated (see gnosiology)."

The Original state, Paradise, of Adam and Eve is one of union with God. (Or in more modern language, a mystical state of Oneness with all that is) In that unified state there is no duality. No opposites. Just Is. God created man out of love and being love gave us free will. We are not forced or coerced into union or following orders. We can choose to do as we wish otherwise it would not be love. So they chose to eat the fruit from the tree of Good and evil, or duality. (Originally it was just a non-specified fruit, not an apple) God asked repeatedly what they had done, not because he didn't know, but because he was giving Adam and Eve the opportunity to genuinely seek forgiveness with a repentant heart which they did not do out of their new fears and knowledge.

Now there is all sorts of shit going on in the human psyche. Where once there was oneness, and the peace of just being, there is now life in union and without union, knowledge of doing wrong, guilt, shame, fear. In Orthodoxy they call original sin, the ancestral sin and only Adam and Eve bear the guilt. The rest of us have to deal with the consequences of their decision which is death, more specifically knowledge and fear of death and separation from God. (Which is all hell is)

So God became man, Jesus, and Jesus died in order to defeat the grip of death so we can choose with our own free will to surrender our fear of death that prevents us from returning to our original unified state with God.

The Orthodox have a different understanding of sin as well. To sin just means to "miss the mark." To screw up, to make a mistake and we have opportunities throughout our spiritual journey to learn and grow from the times we "missed the mark." There is a freedom to be an authentic self in this definition vs. using "sin" as a way to oppress, condemn, and flood us with guilt and shame for simply living the best way we know how at any particular point in time.

Anyway, that's just a slight cruise along the surface. I know I left out a lot of stuff. Oh well. Be love.

 

[Skarekrow]

I can add some stuff to think about too! My perspective is Eastern Orthodox Christianity. It's important to understand that Christianity is supposed to be panentheistic, God indwells in all things.

From Orthodoxwiki:
"The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have a doctrine called panentheism to describe the relationship between the Uncreated (God, who is omnipotent, eternal, and constant) and His creation that bears surface similarities with the panentheism described above but maintains a critical distinction.

Most specifically, these Churches teach that God is not the "watchmaker God" or mechanical God of philosophy found in Western European Enlightenment. Likewise, they teach that God is not the "stage magician God" who only shows up when performing miracles. Instead, the teaching of both these Churches is that God is not merely necessary to have created the universe, but that His active presence is necessary in some way for every bit of creation, from smallest to greatest, to continue to exist at all. That is, God's energies maintain all things and all beings, even if those beings have explicitly rejected Him. His love of creation is such that he will not withdraw His presence, which would be the ultimate form of slaughter, not merely imposing death but ending existence, altogether. By this token, the entirety of creation is sanctified, and thus no part of creation can be considered innately evil. This does not deny the existence of evil in a fallen universe, only that it is not an innate property of creation.

This Orthodox Christian panentheism is distinct from a fundamentalist panentheism in that it maintains an ontological gulf or distance between the created and the Uncreated (see gnosiology)."

The Original state, Paradise, of Adam and Eve is one of union with God. (Or in more modern language, a mystical state of Oneness with all that is) In that unified state there is no duality. No opposites. Just Is. God created man out of love and being love gave us free will. We are not forced or coerced into union or following orders. We can choose to do as we wish otherwise it would not be love. So they chose to eat the fruit from the tree of Good and evil, or duality. (Originally it was just a non-specified fruit, not an apple) God asked repeatedly what they had done, not because he didn't know, but because he was giving Adam and Eve the opportunity to genuinely seek forgiveness with a repentant heart which they did not do out of their new fears and knowledge.

Now there is all sorts of shit going on in the human psyche. Where once there was oneness, and the peace of just being, there is now life in union and without union, knowledge of doing wrong, guilt, shame, fear. In Orthodoxy they call original sin, the ancestral sin and only Adam and Eve bear the guilt. The rest of us have to deal with the consequences of their decision which is death, more specifically knowledge and fear of death and separation from God. (Which is all hell is)

So God became man, Jesus, and Jesus died in order to defeat the grip of death so we can choose with our own free will to surrender our fear of death that prevents us from returning to our original unified state with God.

The Orthodox have a different understanding of sin as well. To sin just means to "miss the mark." To screw up, to make a mistake and we have opportunities throughout our spiritual journey to learn and grow from the times we "missed the mark." There is a freedom to be an authentic self in this definition vs. using "sin" as a way to oppress, condemn, and flood us with guilt and shame for simply living the best way we know how at any particular point in time.

Anyway, that's just a slight cruise along the surface. I know I left out a lot of stuff. Oh well. Be love.

I agree with what you wrote.
There are many verses in the Bible to back up the claim that the whole world is saved and not just a few special folks.

"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to BE THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD" (I John 4:14)! Does the Church teach that Jesus will save "the world"? NO!

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to SAVE SINNERS; of whom I am chief" [Gk: foremost--paramount, preeminent]" (I Tim. 1:15)! Does the Church teach that Jesus will save all "sinners?" NO!

"For the Son of man is come to seek and to SAVE that which was LOST [that's everyone]" (Luke 19:10)! Does the Church teach that Jesus will save all who are "lost?" NO!

"The next day John sees Jesus coming unto Him, and says, Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). Does the Church teach that Jesus will take away the "sin of the world?" NO!

And He is the propitiation [to atone for, conciliate, look upon with mercy and favor] for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" (I John 2:2)! Does the Church teach that Jesus will atone for the "sins of the world--the WHOLE world?" NO!

"God our Saviour Who will have ALL MEN to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (I Tim. 2:3-4). Does the Church teach that God will have "ALL men to be saved?" NO!

"The Lord is... not willing that ANY should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (II Peter 3:9). Does the Church teach that the Lord is not willing that any perish, but that ALL should repent, therefore, none will perish and all will repent? NO!

"For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the livingGod, who IS the Saviour of ALL MEN, specially ['specially' does not mean 'exclusively' or 'only'] of those that believe" (I Tim. 4:10). Does the Church teach that God is not only the Saviour of those that believe, but ultimately"God is the Saviour of ALL men?" NO!

"...I came not to judge the world, but to SAVE the world" (John 12:47). Does the Church teach Jesus will actually accomplish what He came to accomplish- "to SAVE THE WORLD?" NO!

"...we have heard Him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD" (John 4:42). Does the Church teach that the One to Whom they give lip service "is indeed the Christ, THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD?" NO, it does NOT!
These ten Scriptures are not wrongly translated, however, every single Bible verse which uses the word "hell" along with "forever and ever," "everlasting," "evermore," and "eternal," is wrongly translated, and this is relatively easy to study and prove to one's own satisfaction.
Virtually all clergyman in all Christendom teach:

• Jesus will NOT "be the Saviour of the world," but rather Saviour of only a few
• Jesus will NOT "save [all] sinners," but only a few
• Jesus will NOT "save [all] that which was lost," but only a few that are lost
• Jesus will NOT "take away the sin of the world," but only of a few
• Jesus will NOT "have all men to be saved," but only a few men
• Jesus will NOT be that "Lord [which is] "not willing that any should perish," but He WILL be that Lord which will actively participate in eternally torturing those who have perished
• Jesus is NOT "the Saviour of all men," but is the Saviour "of those that believe," only
• Jesus' Own words "I came NOT to judge the world, but to save the world" will never happen
• Jesus is NOT "indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world."

And just why is it that the Church will not teach these astonishing declarations of God, that the whole world will be saved - that all mankind will be saved? Is it because they have never read those ten Scriptures or the dozens and dozens like them?

No...well why then?
The reason is that they don't want the whole world (all mankind) to be saved: they don't approve of God's plan for the salvation of all mankind.
They want to be special, and they don't want their enemies to be saved unless they come under the control and authority of the Church.

 

[Skarekrow]

Another post I made from another thread that is relevant here:

Here is another example of why Hell would be unjust...and God is said to be above all else - Just and kind.
(though not the Old Testament God....he was having a bad couple millennia I suppose and was cranky)
Anyway...Imagine that I own land.
And through this land people will pass going from point A to B.
Somewhere in my land is a big deep hole with sharp pointy rocks and surely if you fell in you would be seriously hurt and in pain.
(never mind why I created this terrible place to begin with, which I did...we will not get into that now)
((not to mention that I could bulldoze the pit closed))
So I created a pathway...and along the path I posted signs that say things like - Stay on the path or your will fall in the pit and die!!!
Or - Don’t stray from the path, it’s dangerous!!, etc. etc.
Well maybe some of the signs pointing the right way are a bit old and hard to read....maybe people have added their own ideas of which way to go or not go...maybe there is someone right in front of the sign yelling about how he knows what the sign (readable, or no longer readable) really means?
Either way...people having a natural curiosity....a natural inclination to see all the beautiful things my land contains (and there are incredibly beautiful things only seen off the beaten path), someone, someday with most likely fall into this pit.
So thinking ahead I set up alarms and cameras so I know when someone has fallen into this terrible place.
I have total knowledge of what is going on in the pit.
So one day the alarms go off and someone has fallen in and I can hear and see them suffering from their terrible fall.
Do I say through my intercom system to the pit - So sorry...you ignored the signs...I could help you, but it’s your own fault you are suffering right now, even if you were lead astray by someone else...doesn’t matter, you had plenty of chances to stay on the path or get back on it.
Doesn’t matter if you were never on the path to begin with, it was there for you to find, it’s your own fault you didn’t find the path I set out for you to safely cross my lands. (because some would never start on the path to begin with).
(You could even go so far as to say that each organized religion has beaten their own path through my land, sometimes on the path I originally made, sometimes going off in their own direction...but eventually all will be funneled by the narrowing of the valley to the other side.)
I could continue to try and justify that person’s suffering, but it’s unjust in any circumstance.
I have the knowledge and the power over that person’s suffering, I have the ability to lift them from the pit and soothe their wounds, so why would I continue to let them suffer?
Even if someone were to run up to me...tell me I’m a fucking asshole and then jump into the pit - I STILL would not leave them there to suffer.
Because the moment their bones crunch they know what a horrible mistake that was.
And clearly, they are not thinking properly.
Does God hold schizophrenics who can’t take the voices anymore and shoot people accountable for their fucked up brain?
I don’t think so.
There is really no circumstance where I would just leave anyone there to suffer.
There is really no crime that can be committed that will not eventually reach a point in “eternal torture” in which their actions will be paid for, in an eternal setting the punishment will ultimately outweigh the crime, and will at that moment become unjust.
Besides that, we are functioning and making decisions with this knowledge obscured from us - shall we go off blind faith alone?
But also we wouldn’t need faith if we also were omniscient, we are not, that has always been THE question of questions - Why are we here? What is the meaning of life?
Punishing someone for being ignorant (by God’s own hand at that) is not just either.
That all directly contradicts the attributes given to God....loving, kind, just, fair, omniscient, but also omnipotent (having the power to end your suffering).
And organized religion is all very set up in the manner of - Worship me, or you will suffer for it.
That isn’t how religion should function imho.
Fear-mongering belief in people isn’t showing what I believe to be good and beautiful about spirituality and the wonders of our universe and reality.
Much love.

 

[Ren]

Instead, the teaching of both these Churches is that God is not merely necessary to have created the universe, but that His active presence is necessary in some way for every bit of creation, from smallest to greatest, to continue to exist at all. That is, God's energies maintain all things and all beings, even if those beings have explicitly rejected Him. His love of creation is such that he will not withdraw His presence, which would be the ultimate form of slaughter, not merely imposing death but ending existence, altogether. By this token, the entirety of creation is sanctified, and thus no part of creation can be considered innately evil. This does not deny the existence of evil in a fallen universe, only that it is not an innate property of creation.

This is also the God of Philosophy! At least of the philosophy of Spinoza

Thanks for sharing this about panentheism, and how it informs the interpretation of original sin. Would you then identify with Orthodox Chritianity from a belief point of view?

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

I agree with what you wrote.
There are many verses in the Bible to back up the claim that the whole world is saved and not just a few special folks.

"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to BE THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD" (I John 4:14)! Does the Church teach that Jesus will save "the world"? NO!

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to SAVE SINNERS; of whom I am chief" [Gk: foremost--paramount, preeminent]" (I Tim. 1:15)! Does the Church teach that Jesus will save all "sinners?" NO!

"For the Son of man is come to seek and to SAVE that which was LOST [that's everyone]" (Luke 19:10)! Does the Church teach that Jesus will save all who are "lost?" NO!

"The next day John sees Jesus coming unto Him, and says, Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). Does the Church teach that Jesus will take away the "sin of the world?" NO!

And He is the propitiation [to atone for, conciliate, look upon with mercy and favor] for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" (I John 2:2)! Does the Church teach that Jesus will atone for the "sins of the world--the WHOLE world?" NO!

"God our Saviour Who will have ALL MEN to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (I Tim. 2:3-4). Does the Church teach that God will have "ALL men to be saved?" NO!

"The Lord is... not willing that ANY should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (II Peter 3:9). Does the Church teach that the Lord is not willing that any perish, but that ALL should repent, therefore, none will perish and all will repent? NO!

"For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the livingGod, who IS the Saviour of ALL MEN, specially ['specially' does not mean 'exclusively' or 'only'] of those that believe" (I Tim. 4:10). Does the Church teach that God is not only the Saviour of those that believe, but ultimately"God is the Saviour of ALL men?" NO!

"...I came not to judge the world, but to SAVE the world" (John 12:47). Does the Church teach Jesus will actually accomplish what He came to accomplish- "to SAVE THE WORLD?" NO!

"...we have heard Him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD" (John 4:42). Does the Church teach that the One to Whom they give lip service "is indeed the Christ, THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD?" NO, it does NOT!
These ten Scriptures are not wrongly translated, however, every single Bible verse which uses the word "hell" along with "forever and ever," "everlasting," "evermore," and "eternal," is wrongly translated, and this is relatively easy to study and prove to one's own satisfaction.
Virtually all clergyman in all Christendom teach:

• Jesus will NOT "be the Saviour of the world," but rather Saviour of only a few
• Jesus will NOT "save [all] sinners," but only a few
• Jesus will NOT "save [all] that which was lost," but only a few that are lost
• Jesus will NOT "take away the sin of the world," but only of a few
• Jesus will NOT "have all men to be saved," but only a few men
• Jesus will NOT be that "Lord [which is] "not willing that any should perish," but He WILL be that Lord which will actively participate in eternally torturing those who have perished
• Jesus is NOT "the Saviour of all men," but is the Saviour "of those that believe," only
• Jesus' Own words "I came NOT to judge the world, but to save the world" will never happen
• Jesus is NOT "indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world."

And just why is it that the Church will not teach these astonishing declarations of God, that the whole world will be saved - that all mankind will be saved? Is it because they have never read those ten Scriptures or the dozens and dozens like them?

No...well why then?
The reason is that they don't want the whole world (all mankind) to be saved: they don't approve of God's plan for the salvation of all mankind.
They want to be special, and they don't want their enemies to be saved unless they come under the control and authority of the Church.

I'd consider myself a perennialist so I don't personally subscribe to that way of thinking or being. Orthodoxy doesn't claim to have a monopoly on Truth as no religion should. It's important to point out that until the year 1054 there was one "Church." That when the Great Schism took place that divided it into east and west. After that point in time things were added, removed, invented, changed and thousands of denominations of Christianity came into existence each with a different interpretation. Eastern Orthodoxy is considered pre-denominational and the still have/use the books of Apocrypha. Not that they don't exist, but I have not come across an Orthodox in real life that doesn't believe salvation is process available to everyone.
(It should be noted that I am not speaking for the church just relaying some info. Lol)

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

This is also the God of Philosophy! At least of the philosophy of Spinoza

Thanks for sharing this about panentheism, and how it informs the interpretation of original sin. Would you then identify with Orthodox Chritianity from a belief point of view?

Yes, but it's new to me, as in the last 2 years. I spent the last decade learning about eastern religions and philosophies and comparing my personal experiences. I avoided Christianity for all the reasons @Skarekrow points out, but it is different. It is my language and I feel at "home" within orthodoxy. Thanks for asking!