I agree that the concept, or doctrine, of original sin is a fallacy. How can a new born baby be a sinner? This belief can lead to a lifetime of subliminal and undefined guilt. I see this guilt as a way of certain religions controlling people. As an adult one should feel guilty if one causes harm or behaves badly. But guilt alone is useless. Apology and making amends is the way to deal with justifiable guilt.
.

I feel that the idea of an original sin that causes all humans to be born corrupted — Andrew4Handel

The problem I always had is it is this: just how is that supposed to work ontologically? How, ontologically, does Adam and/or Eve doing something get passed on to us?

Yahweh getting a fit over an apple and cursing us forever is obviously creative story-telling.
What about the boars beavers goats rabbits squirrels etc that suffer and die from cancer and malocclusion, what did they ever do?
According to creationists it's all different "kinds" anyway.
Nasty fellow that Yahweh character of the stories.

Well, creationists "kind" is (also) ignorant nonsense:

• in a small part of a ring species, x and y can have offspring (⇒ same "kind"), and y and z can have offspring (⇒ same "kind")
• all the same "kind" (transitive relation)
• yet x and z cannot have offspring (⇒ not the same "kind") ⚡
• hence "kind" is incoherent nonsense

The idea of "original sin" was, as I understand it, created to balance the act of final salvation by Jesus Christ. This wasn't Jesus' idea. It was elaborated many years later by theologians trying to make sense of Jesus' death and systematize a scheme of salvation.

As I understand it, Judaism is not focused on the Eden story the same way Christian are. For one thing, there is a "do over" in the story of Noah. Noah and his family are saved, everybody else is wiped out. We (figuratively) descend from Noah as well as from Adam.

Anybody has to wonder why people can't behave. We seem to be prone to error, as the theory of Original Sin suggests. None of us can go very long without doing something wrongful, in thought, word, or deed, and some of us go very, very wrong fairly often.

A modern, secular thinker can say, "Well, we are primates who house all the base urges of the animal world (of which we are a part), but hitched to those basic animal urges is a high level of intelligence and creativity which can take us both to the heights of goodness and to the depths or depravity. That's just what we are." That kind of thinking wasn't available to the Christians of the first century. (It doesn't seem to be available to some people in the 21st century either.)

The first thing that should be noted is that there is no mention of original sin in the creation story. The first mention of sin occurs in Genesis 4 when God says to Cain:

But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it. (4:7)

To sin is to be led astray or to harm or be blameworthy. But one can rule over sin, that is, one is able avoid wrongdoing. One is not blameworthy because one is born of sin, but because one does something wrong.

According to Paul:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned (Romans 5:12)

According to the Genesis story because man has 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.” (3:22) Adam had been warned: “but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” (2:17).

Paul, who was as subtle as the serpent, gets things right in one sense, as did the serpent, but misrepresents it. Men die, but according to the story it is because they have become “like one of us”. They became like the gods because they ate of the tree of knowledge and thus were prevented from eating of the tree of life. Now Paul can call what they did a sin, but the story does not. In addition, Cain did not sin because his parents did, he did so as a matter of choice or an inability to control himself.

Another point that should be considered. We find in the Hebrew Bible statements such as:

Keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.” (Exodus 34:7)

‘The Lord is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.’ (Numbers 14:18)

One way to read this is that God will not only punish you but your children and their children, but why should God visit the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children? This seems like the height of injustice. How can children and their children be blamed for what their ancestors did? This is the flip side of the image of God’s promise to Abram:

I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you; and all the families of the earth will be blessed through you. (Genesis 12:2-3)

It can be read as a warning to those who desire greatness. Rather than being the father of a great nation, your iniquity will make you the father of generations who are cursed. Does this mean that the innocent will be punished for their father’s misdeeds? The statements do not, however, say that they children are innocent, but rather that God will not clear the guilty. Does this mean that the children are guilty simply because the father was guilty? I don’t think so. Although there are exceptions, consider phrases such as: “like father like son” and “the apple doesn't fall far from the tree”.

Consider also the following:

Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)

The Hebrew Bible advocates personal responsibility. Sin can get the best of you, but you have some say as to whether it does or does not. Paul, however, seems to abdicate responsibility - we are powerless against sin and in need of grace.

The Hebrew Bible advocates personal responsibility. Sin can get the best of you, but you have some say as to whether it does or does not. Paul, however, seems to abdicate responsibility - we are powerless against sin and in need of grace. — Fooloso4

Its funny, but who gets to decide what "sin" is? In the Hebrew Bible, sin tends to be tied to error in following Mosaic law. You didn't follow the Sabbath correctly- that is a sin. It is a "missing of the mark" in terms of following Mosaic law.

As @Fooloso4 aptly explained, this idea of responsibility for following Mosaic law or lack thereof being the connotation of sin, sin itself becomes some sort of metaphysical state in Pauline Christianity. That is to say, the world becomes imbued with a metaphysically sinful nature which humans have some sort of connection with since the Adam and Eve story. This idea can come from Gnostic ones originally that the physical world is simply considered "bad" due to the Demiurge's rule over it. Ideas of these kind were floating around in the Greco-Roman period. Paul probably took them and incorporated it to his new theology and interpretation.

Its funny, but who gets to decide what "sin" is? In the Hebrew Bible, sin tends to be tied to error in following Mosaic law. — schopenhauer1

This is an interesting question. Cain's sin was not a violation of Mosaic Law since this was prior to the Law. Adam and Eve's disobedience was not called a sin. Perhaps the reason is that prior to knowledge of good and bad they were innocents and could not be held responsible for what they did not know. On the other hand, Eve saw that the fruit of the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom (3:6). How could she see that if without having knowledge of good and bad?

This idea can come from Gnostic ones originally that the physical world is simply considered "bad" due to the Demiurge's rule over it. Ideas of these kind were floating around in the Greco-Roman period. Paul probably took them and incorporated it to his new theology and interpretation. — schopenhauer1

I have wondered about Paul's influences - was it the influence of Hellenism or some strand of Judaism or some combination? According to Acts, Saul was a student of Gamaliel, but we do not find in the lineage of that teaching, beginning with his grandfather Hillel, what Paul came to preach. Contrary to that teaching, Saul did not display the kind of tolerance they advocated. Was Paul's conversion responsible for his teachings about sin? Was his aversion to the body idiosyncratic? To what extent might it have been rhetorical, geared to an audience that was familiar with Hellenistic teachings about the corruption of this world? A way of persuading them to seek salvation in Christ before it was too late? A story of cosmic forces beyond their control?

as Wilfred McClay points out in a brilliant essay called “The Strange Persistence of Guilt” for The Hedgehog Review, religion may be in retreat, but guilt seems as powerfully present as ever.

Technology gives us power and power entails responsibility, and responsibility, McClay notes, leads to guilt: You and I see a picture of a starving child in Sudan and we know inwardly that we’re not doing enough.

“Whatever donation I make to a charitable organization, it can never be as much as I could have given. I can never diminish my carbon footprint enough, or give to the poor enough. … Colonialism, slavery, structural poverty, water pollution, deforestation — there’s an endless list of items for which you and I can take the rap.”

McClay is describing a world in which we’re still driven by an inextinguishable need to feel morally justified. Our thinking is still vestigially shaped by religious categories.

And yet we have no clear framework or set of rituals to guide us in our quest for goodness. Worse, people have a sense of guilt and sin, but no longer a sense that they live in a loving universe marked by divine mercy, grace and forgiveness. There is sin but no formula for redemption.

The only reliable way to feel morally justified in that culture is to assume the role of victim. — David Brooks

Brooks suggests this explains the ferocity of many of the debates, or brawls, between different ideological profiles in today's America. More here.

How can a new born baby be a sinner? — Bodhisattva

Buddhist culture doesn't employ the lexicon of sin and salvation, but it is nevertheless assumed that beings are born as a consequence of ignorance (avidya) and usually as a result of foregoing craving and attachment, which gives rise to birth in human form. (Actually, continued birth, as for Buddhists this is the self-perpetuating process of samsara.) Accordingly, the human condition is characterised in terms of 'beginningless ignorance'. Beginningless, because no-one is able to pinpoint where exactly the process began. And even though avidya not the same as 'original sin', it is in some ways analogous, in that it explains why persons may well be born with, shall we say, less than optimal characters.

Personally, I feel that such myths capture something fundamental about the human condition, namely, that humans don't seem to be born with an inherent predisposition to do good. Absent a social and familial framework which encourages that and instils the behaviours and attitudes required for it, humans do seem to very easily fall into unproductive and unhappy behaviours. I don't know if current culture has adequate metaphors for this reality, so it tends not to think about it.

This is an interesting question. Cain's sin was not a violation of Mosaic Law since this was prior to the Law. Adam and Eve's disobedience was not called a sin. Perhaps the reason is that prior to knowledge of good and bad they were innocents and could not be held responsible for what they did not know. On the other hand, Eve saw that the fruit of the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom (3:6). How could she see that if without having knowledge of good and bad? — Fooloso4

I'd like to preface this with the fact that I don't believe any of this happened, and that this far back in Genesis is basically pure mythology drawn from internal and external inspiration of the Hebrew scribes and storytellers before that.

However, prior to Noah, the idea was probably that God was probably more involved in the whole thing. Some Rabbis later retroactively said the Torah was in full force and known.. Of course, that was a bit of poetic license there on their part to answer that sort of question. There is something called Noahide laws- these were the seven laws that all humankind is supposed to follow (as opposed to the more stringent 613 commandments only Israelites/Jews were to follow). I am not sure the apologetics of how someone "sinned" before Noah though. Presumably by the time of the Roman period, "sinning" for gentiles was breaking the seven Noahide laws.

I have wondered about Paul's influences - was it the influence of Hellenism or some strand of Judaism or some combination? According to Acts, Saul was a student of Gamaliel, but we do not find in the lineage of that teaching, beginning with his grandfather Hillel, what Paul came to preach. Contrary to that teaching, Saul did not display the kind of tolerance they advocated. Was Paul's conversion responsible for his teachings about sin? Was his aversion to the body idiosyncratic? To what extent might it have been rhetorical, geared to an audience that was familiar with Hellenistic teachings about the corruption of this world? A way of persuading them to seek salvation in Christ before it was too late? A story of cosmic forces beyond their control? — Fooloso4

I think Paul was a well-educated guy, educated enough to essentially start a new religion and sell the shit out of it. Though most of this can only be speculation, Hyam Maccoby's ideas about Paul rings true based on the evidence. Paul came from Tarsus in Asia Minor- raised a Hellenistic Jew. Presumably he encountered Hellenistic ideas in the main Greco-Roman stronghold of Asia Minor. That area, especially Tarsus was known for mystery cults where initiates would become more initiated into the rites of the god Mithras who would symbolically be slaughtered in the form of a bull, and rites of drinking blood as communion occurred every year. He was a dying and resurrecting god that saved the world every year. Maccoby proposes that Paul was so Romanized that he had Roman citizenship, something denied most Jews of his time period in the Roman Empire. Thus he and his family must have been very friendly with the higher ups. He was probably familiar with Gnostic teachings in the Hellenistic areas that he traveled from and to, being that he could write in Greek himself, and was exposed to these ideas of the "corrupt" physical world, and the "refined" spiritual one, his attitude towards the Torah and sin and salvation were crystalizing before he even got to Jerusalem.

He came to Jerusalem as a seeker, and got disillusioned by the various Jewish sects- probably not even staying any notable time in the Pharisees. Most likely he found himself as a lackey for the High Priest. Perhaps he truly thought he had some epiphany on the road to Damascus. Whatever it was, he pretty much hijacked the Jesus Movement sect, and started synthesizing ideas of "dying for sins" (Mithras), with the idea of Torah not being necessary (Gnostic/Platonic ideas).

Whereas the original group was probably some sort of Enochic/Essenic Judaism that had very characteristically Galilean Jewish interpretations of the law (less emphasis on non-Priestly purity laws as opposed to the more stringent Jerusalemite/Judean interpretations) and was headed by his brother James, Paul made a sort of counter-cultural coup inside the inner circles, and especially when out of the site of James who was stationed in Jerusalem. Eventually Paul's counter-revolution won out, and that became what eventually was to be Pauline/Gentile Christianity- which had many competing factions of its before the Council of Nicea. The original Jamesian sect died out over time as they had no home in the newly formed Rabbinical Judaism nor in the alien gentile Churches that were taking over the Roman Empire.

I'd like to preface this with the fact that I don't believe any of this happened — schopenhauer1

Either do I. My interest is not "religious" but philosophical - the texts are an influential part of our intellectual history. Whether the philosophers accepted or rejected the claims they often referred to them, often without identifying them.[

quote="schopenhauer1;290921"]I think Paul was a well-educated guy, educated enough to essentially start a new religion and sell the shit out of it.[/quote]

I agree, although I do not think he intended to start a new religion. Apparently he believed the world was about to end. There would be no need for religion since those who were saved would transformed and live as spirit bodies in a transformed world

... he pretty much hijacked the Jesus Movement sect, — schopenhauer1

Christian animosity toward and propaganda against the Jews in the New Testament are the direct result of this schism. I suspect that Jesus would have been appalled by Paul's teachings, and even more so if he knew he would be made a God by Paul's followers.

... competing factions of its before the Council of Nicea. — schopenhauer1

In my opinion, Arius' arguments had a far more convincing Biblical grounding than Athanasius'.


.

Christian animosity toward and propaganda against the Jews in the New Testament are the direct result of this schism. I suspect that Jesus would have been appalled by Paul's teachings, and even more so if he knew he would be made a God by Paul's followers. — Fooloso4

Agreed

In my opinion, Arius' arguments had a far more convincing Biblical grounding than Athanasius'. — Fooloso4

It lasted for a while but eventually was squashed. By that time though, it was all variations on Pauline anyways. Once past the layer of James and the brothers of Jesus who took over the early community after him, it's like apples and oranges, so all the divisions are of the variations of oranges, when the whole time, the original was apples.

it's like apples and oranges — schopenhauer1

Or matzo balls and bacon. Or circumcised and uncircumcised.

:rofl: Apt analogy

I think being cast out of the Garden of Eden is the equivalent of the original sin. The basic concept though is that humans are to blame for the state of nature.

I believe it is an early manifestation of the psychological just world theory. Rather than accept that nature is cruel and arbitrary the narrative is that we are actually more in control of outcomes then we actually are.

The problem I always had is it is this: just how is that supposed to work ontologically? How, ontologically, does Adam and/or Eve doing something get passed on to us? — Terrapin Station

I think the narrative is probably purely psychological. But I think the problem is that this kind of narrative has been latched onto throughout history and false justifications and moralities are being based on it.

I think the idea that reality is just may be comforting regardless of whether or not it is.

In the bible it says contradictory things about whether people should be punished for other peoples sins. Contradiction in the bible to me makes it incoherent when taken literally.

"I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." Exodus 20:5 , Deuteronomy 5:9

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him". Ezekiel 18:20

The first thing that should be noted is that there is no mention of original sin in the creation story. The first mention of sin occurs in Genesis 4 when God says to Cain: — Fooloso4

But I think being cast out of the Garden of Eden is equivalent to it.

There is some contradiction and subtly in the bible but mainstream religion or fundamentalists latch on to particular verse. I don't think sophistication and subtly is how religion reaches the masses.

I think Ecclesiates is the Book of the bible that is most nuanced and realistic about the human predicament but as far as I can see not widely embraced in mainstream Christianity. For example it was never discussed in a a bible reading in the churches I grew up in.

Brooks suggests this explains the ferocity of many of the debates, or brawls, between different ideological profiles in today's America. More here. — Wayfarer

It seems there is an on going battle to distribute blame. I think psychopaths can flourish in this environment by appropriating the narrative to their own interest. More emotionally vulnerable people will become depressed and anxious.

But it seems a more sophisticated narrative would be to look more at mitigation and rational explanations. But also I do think a false just world theory allows people to justify bad things and justify their own position. Some people will dress up a false just world hypothesis as a rational explanation.

But I think being cast out of the Garden of Eden is equivalent to it. — Andrew4Handel

God states why they were banished from the Garden and forbidden to return. It was not because they sinned but because of what they would become if they had been allowed to remain. It is the Christian preoccupation with sin that overshadows God's real concern.

I don't think sophistication and subtly is how religion reaches the masses. — Andrew4Handel

That may be but this does not mean that this story and others in the Hebrew Bible are without sophistication and subtly.

I think Ecclesiates is the Book of the bible that is most nuanced and realistic about the human predicament but as far as I can see not widely embraced in mainstream Christianity. For example it was never discussed in a a bible reading in the churches I grew up in. — Andrew4Handel

There is no salvation in the words of Koheleth. If not for a certain kind of reverence and piety for what is regarded as the "old testament" the work would stand as an affront, but the advent of the "good news" assures that believers need not be troubled.

Despite its mythological narrative, the Book of Job is also nuanced and realistic and leaves us without comforting answers to the human predicament. It yields no answers as to why things happen as they do.

I believe original sin was a Christian invention, a narrative to rationalize the execution of Jesus - making it a "sacrifice", just like sacrificing a lamb ("lamb of God").

That is to say, the world becomes imbued with a metaphysically sinful nature which humans have some sort of connection with since the Adam and Eve story. — schopenhauer1

That it is a reflection of the predicament of the human condition, of which self-awareness and willfulness are essential ingredients.

God states why they were banished from the Garden and forbidden to return. It was not because they sinned but because of what they would become if they had been allowed to remain. — Fooloso4

I'm curious about why you believe that sin doesn't figure in this story. What they did experience was 'shame' - that after having eaten, Adam and Eve knew they were naked, and sought to cover themselves with figleaves. I would have thought that this sense of shame would be intimately connected with 'sin'.

I know that Augustine in particular was responsible for elaborating the doctrine of original sin, particularly drawing on Paul's conception of 'sin', which clearly originated in the New Testament, and his connection of sin with the sexual act. But I still see a relationship between 'shame' and 'sin' in the narrative, in that the sense of shame marks the origin of self-awareness or egoity, the sense of oneself as a separate being.

After having eaten the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil 'the man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil'. I understand that too as parable for the beginning of self-awareness, as, prior to this, man would have had a kind of animal ignorance, no awareness of good and evil, but only of reflexive pain and pleasure. With the beginning of 'tilling the soil' and the 'sweat of the brow', man becomes aware of or conscious of the sense of gain and loss, suffering and death, which I take to be central to the parable of the fall.

That it is a reflection of the predicament of the human condition, of which self-awareness and willfulness are essential ingredients. — Wayfarer

This is an interesting metaphor, but do not think it is exactly what Paul's (and later Augustine's) definition of Original Sin was. It is the idea that humanity is somehow imbued with sin based on the actions of the first humans. My point was that the original Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish interpretation of these events did not characterize the world in such a way. This was mainly an idea developed by Paul and later Church Fathers like Augustine. Sin was not thought as something that tainted humanity, but rather was seen as each individual "missing the mark" or not following commandments. Basically, the Torah was seen as divine law. Humans transgressing the Law were seen as something approximating what would later be deemed as "sin".

Paul on the other hand, conceived of the idea of Original Sin, so humans can have some unescapable tainted metaphysical aspect, that only his conception of a savior/dying/resurrecting god can redeem through this act. This conception was meant to overthrow the original conception of sin as transgressing the Laws of Moses/Torah/commandments/Jewish law, etc.

Now, as far as simply deconstructing the myth- I am fine with that, as long as we are seeing that that is a separate topic. For example, if we want to deconstruct the myth with the idea that eating the apple was akin to "falling into time" (pace E.M. Cioran), that has some interesting implications. Man, even in the Garden of Eden, was not contented. There was a kernel of dissatisfaction, even then. Dissatisfaction is simply a part of our condition, and we beget it continually for ourselves and to others through procreation.

I'm curious about why you believe that sin doesn't figure in this story. What they did experience was 'shame' - that after having eaten, Adam and Eve knew they were naked, and sought to cover themselves with figleaves. I would have thought that this sense of shame would be intimately connected with 'sin'. — Wayfarer

Shame? The story says nothing about shame. My reading follows Robert Sacks' "The Lion and the Ass: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis". To be naked is to be exposed. The term (חֲגוֹר) translated as girdle or loincloth or belt also means battle garments or armor (see 2 Kings 3:21). Knowing good and evil they knew they were vulnerable and had to protect themselves. Their inept attempt reflects their nascent knowledge. God made clothing (לָבַשׁ) for them.

Sin was not thought as something that tainted humanity, — schopenhauer1

That’s exactly the Augustinian doctrine of original sin - that all mankind is tainted by the original sin, transmitted by the act of procreation, and only absolved by faith in Christ. Sin as missing the mark is one etymology, but the idea of 'abrogating the law' is more consistent with the Jewish emphasis on keeping the law. This idea was later generalised to account for mans' overall condition of 'fallen-ness' which is the meaning of the 'original sin'.

Anyway my comment was more a modern, or revisionist, attempt at interpreting the myth in realist terms, because I accept that 'the myth of the fall' says something real about the human condition. It's not simply 'myth' in the sense of being a fallacious account now displaced by scientific knowledge. But on the other hand, if you accept, as I do, the scientific accounts of the development of the species then any interpretation has to be reconcilable with that, so it has to speak symbolically but realistically about the human condition - which I believe it does.

The [Genesis] story says nothing about shame. — Fooloso4

Oh, come on:

Gen 1:25: - before the fall - 'Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.'
Gen 3:7: - after 'having eaten' - 'Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves'.

I don't buy that interpretation - the advent of self-consciousness, and therefore shame, seems much nearer the mark to me.

That’s exactly the Augustinian doctrine of original sin - that all mankind is tainted by the original sin, transmitted by the act of procreation, and only absolved by faith in Christ. Sin as missing the mark is one etymology, but the idea of 'abrogating the law' is more consistent with the Jewish emphasis on keeping the law. This idea was later generalised to account for mans' overall condition of 'fallen-ness' which is the meaning of the 'original sin'.

Anyway my comment was more a modern, or revisionist, attempt at interpreting the myth in realist terms, because I accept that 'the myth of the fall' says something real about the human condition. It's not simply 'myth' in the sense of being a fallacious account now displaced by scientific knowledge. But on the other hand, if you accept, as I do, the scientific accounts of the development of the species then any interpretation has to be reconcilable with that, so it has to speak symbolically but realistically about the human condition - which I believe it does. — Wayfarer

I'm not sure you fully read or comprehended my last post. I acknowledged that the idea of Original Sin, as far as I see, started with Paul and later Church Fathers like Augustine. However, the original conception of sin, was not the one painted by Paul/Augustine but was more practical- which is to say, whether one is transgressing the Law or not. Sin was equated with simply not keeping the Law properly or violating it. The atonement for this depended on the kind of transgression. If it was against another person, that wrong had to be forgiven by the person. If it was against a ritual law, one was to provide a sacrifice at the Temple.

Paul's conception made it such that humanity was tainted from "Sin" at the beginning of time, thus setting up the idea that Jesus' death/resurrection was thereby the sacrifice that was needed for participants to be "saved" from this original sin.

I also provided a deconstruction of the myth, mentioning E.M.Cioran's idea from his book, "The Fall into Time" that it may be a metaphor for human's basic dissatisfaction, even in paradise.

However, the original conception of sin, was not the one painted by Paul/Augustine but was more practical- which is to say, whether one is transgressing the Law or not. Sin was equated with simply not keeping the Law properly or violating it. — schopenhauer1

However, 'law' here is not simply a civil code, but divine command; the Mosaic law. So, perhaps less elaborated in the OT than the NT, but nevertheless, of the same order. (Although I do understand that 'sin' is the most politically incorrect concept in the English language :-) )

This is a claim made by John Angell James in his book "Being Born again" from 1834.

"You have Broken God's law ; you have acted as an enemy to him, and made him your enemy. If you had committed only one single act of transgression, your situation would be alarming. One sin would have subjected you to the sentence of his law, and exposed you to his displeasure: but you have committed sins more in number and greater in magnitude than you know or can conceive of. Your whole life has been one continued course of sin: you have, as relates to God, done nothing but sin. Your transgressions have sent up to heaven a cry for vengeance. You are actually under the curse of the almighty."

You could call this the total depravity view of man.

I find this sentiment very disturbing. James seems to be trying to put total blame on an individual and mans nature for whatever happens to them and to suggest any fate we have is deserved and God is not to blame.

However he doesn't actually say what the sins are we are supposed to have committed.

However, 'law' here is not simply a civil code, but divine command; the Mosaic law. So, perhaps less elaborated in the OT than the NT, but nevertheless, of the same order. (Although I do understand that 'sin' is the most politically incorrect concept in the English language :-) ) — Wayfarer

Yes, but I said that. Again, did you read my first post you responded to? I said:

Paul on the other hand, conceived of the idea of Original Sin, so humans can have some unescapable tainted metaphysical aspect, that only his conception of a savior/dying/resurrecting god can redeem through this act. This conception was meant to overthrow the original conception of sin as transgressing the Laws of Moses/Torah/commandments/Jewish law, etc. — schopenhauer1

However he doesn't actually say what the sins are we are supposed to have committed. — Andrew4Handel

I don't know much about the hell and brimstone guy you are quoting, so I can't say specifically if he had a set of sins in mind. However, this seems to prove the point that committing "sins" (multiple) makes little sense out of its original context of being specifically transgressing Mosaic Law. Sin was the opposite of following the commandments, in other words. It was "missing the mark". It was atoned for by way of asking forgiveness if to another person, and sacrifices at the Temple in Jerusalem. This is partly why the High Priest and the priestly class in general were so important in the Second Temple Period especially.

Being that Pauline Christianity broke away from Jewish law, and was essentially targeted to gentile communities who had no connection with an ancestral Mosaic Law to begin with, sin becomes nebulous. It either becomes more metaphysical, as in the concept of Original Sin (we are all impossibly imbued with sin due to the first man), or there are simply Church-constructed "sins" that become ones that are to be transgressed. Usually these are arbitrarily taken from Mosaic Law. This is even more tenuous because, if Mosaic Law is supposed to be no longer binding, then why only certain parts of Mosaic Law are cherry picked as "sins" while the rest aren't? This would be post-facto justification. The Church in this case, needs a reason for people to need it.

Gen 1:25: - before the fall - 'Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.' — Wayfarer

That is Genesis 2:25. Look at the context - building a woman for man from himself (bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh) and bringing her to him, cleaving together they became one flesh.

Why would they be ashamed to be naked? Is it shameful for a husband and wife to be naked in each other's presence? Adam and Eve had nothing to hide from each other before they knew good and evil. Once man has knowledge of good and evil, however, once man is no longer innocent, there may be things that a husband and wife might want to hide from each other.

Gen 3:7: - after 'having eaten' - 'Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves'. — Wayfarer

Do you imagine that from that point forward they did not remove the fig leaves when they had sex?

I don't buy that interpretation - the advent of self-consciousness, and therefore shame, seems much nearer the mark to me. — Wayfarer

And if it is not nearer the mark have you sinned? All kidding aside, it is the taint of Christianity that makes sex shameful. But outside the Garden there is an aspect of sex that was not present in the Garden - procreation and the pain of labor. Knowledge is not about self-consciousness but production - the ability to make something. What man makes, what he produces is not simply one or the other, good or bad, but both. Procreation is the paradigmatic case. This is not the place to get into it, but notice how much of the creation stories are based on a unity in tension between opposites, beginning with the two opposite origin stories themselves - a watery world in flux where nothing is distinguished until God begins to separate one thing from another, and a world that is static where nothing happens until the mist waters the earth. Man is dust and breath, a unity that is destroyed in order to make another that together form a unity, cleaving together and cleaving apart from others. A single tree that bears fruit that is both good and bad.