Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Bohandas]

Just realized something

Does the "original" in "original sin" simply mean "first" as I had always assumed, or is the word being misused to imply "pertaining to origins", like what we are, where we've come from, etc.?

[Reelya]

Well, you'd have to go back to the source language of the doctrine, since the dual meaning of "origin" in English as first or source may not actually apply.

The concept seems linked to the Greek concept of "ancestral fault", i.e. sin passed down to your descendants, so it would seem that "original sin" = "the source of all sin", not necessarily just "the first sin".

[origamiscienceguy]

The source of all sin was Satan's rebellion. The result of that was the temptation of Eve and all of man sinning.

[TD1]

Surely the ultimate source of sin is God?

[origamiscienceguy]

Satan≠God

[Rolan7]

And we aren't Adam or Eve.

[Egan_BW]

Satan≠God

Citation needed.

[Frumple]

You're not really going to find one, save in the extra-canonical sources. It's implied by the texts treating them as different entities, but it's also similarly implied there's multiple "satans", so...

Metaphysically, insofar as christianity goes the source of sin is kinda' necessarily God, regardless as to if Satan (or whatever else) is the primary source of inculcation or not, because God in christian metaphysics is the source of everything. The serpent was God's creation, the inclination towards sin in the garden was God's design, etc., etc. The closest way of sidestepping that that exists, so far as I'm aware, is considering sin to be a lack (generally of God's presence, or something along those lines), but even that falls fairly flat -- God would have made the conditions for the lack, as well. God being the source of sin is kinda' axiomatic to the metaphysics in question.

The rebellion thing is pretty much entirely extra-biblical, so far as I can recall -- genesis makes no mention of rebellion, if my memory's not failing me (which, being fair, it might -- I just woke up from a nap), and the adversary (/adversaries) are shown elsewhere in the texts to be subordinate to God's will (as everything is). There's just not really all that much canonical support for it, heh.

That said, satan as the source of sin (for whatever reason) and whatnot is a relatively common belief among individual denominations. It's just one of those kinda' fanfic-y ones, heh.

[martinuzz]

Surely the ultimate source of sin is God?

Ofcourse, God is almighty, and created everything. Satan is God's creation as well, he even used to be his favourite angel, Lucifer, keeper of light.

So yeah, if Satan's rebellion brought sin to earth, God is most definitly to blame for that.

[penguinofhonor]

Apparently Milton interpreted a verse in Revelation to be about pre-Genesis times, wrote it into Paradise Lost, and you know the rest. Bible scholars nowadays seem to agree that it refers to a war during the End Times or that it's a metaphor. But pop Christianity is pretty disconnected from Bible scholars, so Satan's Rebellion lives on because it's a good story.

[Arx]

he even used to be his favourite angel, Lucifer, keeper of light.

This is also a claim that needs to be sourced.

[martinuzz]

he even used to be his favourite angel, Lucifer, keeper of light.

This is also a claim that needs to be sourced.

I don't claim anything, I'm an agnost, but here's a link with some info on the concept in abrahamic religions. Note that that wiki was written either by someone who's bad at grammar, or more likely someone who is heavily biased by his own religion, but it still has at least some basic info.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_angel

[Arx]

Yep, and that wiki page bears me out. Lucifer may refer to an angel, but is more likely just the King of Babylon. Further, assuming the angel interpretation to be true, there's little to suggest that he/she/xe/it (I think angels are genderless?) is/was favoured of God.

[Rolan7]

Yeah was going to say, the Lucifer = Satan thing seems to be a big misunderstanding perpetuated by popular culture.  Here's the case I made earlier:

[Old discussion snipped]
Is that all supported by the Bible, though?
For instance, as someone already pointed out, Lucifer is only mentioned in the Bible once - Isaiah 14:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/is/14.html#12

There's a lot of evidence that Lucifer, Light-Bringer, meant the current King of Babylon.

14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

So far, looks like Satan.  Matches the story of Satan leading fallen angels in rebellion, though I haven't checked for Biblical basis of that story yet.
But then:

14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Future tense - the subject hasn't been cast into hell yet.

14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

The subject is a "man".  Note that angels have fearsome, inhuman visages such as being made of burning wheels.

14:17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

The subject had a prison (despite not being in Hell yet) and is being blamed for not opening it.  And he destroyed cities.  An unjust king could do these things.  Satan never destroyed cities (just God), and he doesn't have the ability to release souls from Hell.  And again, the subject isn't even in Hell yet, so it's definitely not the prison being referred to.

14:18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.
14:19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
14:20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.

The subject will not be buried with other kings of nations, because he destroyed his land and killed his people.  Clearly he was a mortal king.

I haven't read the relevant apocrypha though, so there may be some basis for an Archangel Lucifer there.  I think that's where the story of the angelic rebellion comes from.
But even if that's so, I think it would be a different Lucifer than in Isaiah 14.

[martinuzz]

Yep, and that wiki page bears me out. Lucifer may refer to an angel, but is more likely just the King of Babylon. Further, assuming the angel interpretation to be true, there's little to suggest that he/she/xe/it (I think angels are genderless?) is/was favoured of God.

There's a reference to him being one of the archangels. The archangels were god's first, and favourite angels. Combine that with the tradition back in those days that names weren't just names, they almost always had meaning. Lucifer literally translates to bearer/keeper of light.

Then again, I claim nothing. I don't believe in the myth, so I can't claim it to be true. I just note, out of scholarly interest, that there are ancient abrahamic scriptures that could be interpreted to point at Satan originally being and archangel named Lucifer(or rather, the Hebrew word for that).