Large gaps in Jesus life mean we don't know his inner and outer struggles. How'd his toilet training go? Did he wet the bed a few times? Did he use wrong words his parents laughed about as he learned to speak? Did he have erotic dreams, masturbate, have to establish control of his sexuality like every adolescent? Did he get teased by others, and have the range of emotions that accompany them? Did he get sunburnt, nauseated, diarrhea? Etc.
1. I deny that nobody is born altruistic. Nobody comes out of the womb displaying that altruism, but it doesn't take too long. And society, cities, neighborhood, even families depend on altruism as the glue that keeps them together. Laws keep the rogue evildoers in line. But they couldn't keep the whole thing going.
2. "just" can mean "only" (I was just asking about your mother). And "just" can mean "fair" (cognate with "justice") (It's not just that Bill can murder Ted without going to jail).
...
The sin nature is not something that was part of God's original creation of humanity. It is much more like a parasite--something that has glommed on to the original nature of humanity, which is still present, but which rides it, infects it, permeates it, and does its damndest to meld with it. So Adam and Eve were fully human without it, and Christ is fully human without it, and all of us (one day!) will be and remain fully human without it, once we've been entirely cleansed of it.
The sin nature adds nothing useful to us (unlike, say, the micro-organisms that apparently became our mitochondria, or bits of them). It is not a thing anyone sensible would want to keep....
But if your parasite or disease or syndrome causes you to do something, in normal life that takes away a lot of your moral responsibility for doing it. (My Tourette's / my kleptomania / whatever made me do it...)
I'm also strangely reminded of an episode of Star Trek where Kirk is split (presumably by transporter malfunction ? Don't remember) into good-Kirk who's nice but ineffectual and bad-Kirk who's amoral and aggressive. And has to integrate with his other half rather than defeat it...
The Enemy Within. (And yes, it's a transporter malfunction. Of course. Using the transporter is only slightly less dangerous than taking a shuttle to a conference.)
...
The sin nature is not something that was part of God's original creation of humanity. It is much more like a parasite--something that has glommed on to the original nature of humanity, which is still present, but which rides it, infects it, permeates it, and does its damndest to meld with it. So Adam and Eve were fully human without it, and Christ is fully human without it, and all of us (one day!) will be and remain fully human without it, once we've been entirely cleansed of it.
The sin nature adds nothing useful to us (unlike, say, the micro-organisms that apparently became our mitochondria, or bits of them). It is not a thing anyone sensible would want to keep....
But if your parasite or disease or syndrome causes you to do something, in normal life that takes away a lot of your moral responsibility for doing it. (My Tourette's / my kleptomania / whatever made me do it...)
I'm also strangely reminded of an episode of Star Trek where Kirk is split (presumably by transporter malfunction ? Don't remember) into good-Kirk who's nice but ineffectual and bad-Kirk who's amoral and aggressive. And has to integrate with his other half rather than defeat it...
Excellent Russ. So, since 6025 years ago we've had this unnatural sin nature due to some supernatural agent. There again our pre-sin nature is unnatural too of course, created shortly before. There can't be a natural explanation obviously.
As St John says 'every kind of wrongdoing is sin, but not all sin is deadly'.
One of the things that I appreciate in Catholic theology is that the seven deadly sis are not actions at all, but dispositions. The traditional idea that sin is separation from God strikes me as exactly right. When we are angry with our neighbor, we have separated ourselves from God as surely as if we had physically attacked our neighbor. Focusing of wrongdoing is missing the point -- and confusing sin with criminality. Or so ISTM.
I agree. I am late here, but my engineer head finds the 7 deadlies useful as 'dimensions' of sin - like r-g-b are dimensions of colour, x-y-z or r-theta-phi are dimensions of space, salt-sweet-bitter-sour-(umami?) are dimensions of taste, and the Fourier components of a complex waveform are the decomposed dimensions of that waveform. The 7 deadlies might not be orthogonal descriptors (pride / vanity...a bit hard to extricate but perhaps that's my iffy technique), which messes up the metaphor a little, but I find it useful to think that way.
Did Adam and Eve have a sin nature when they were first created? If not how did it become part of the human genome? God burned it into their DNA? They were created with the tendency toward sin, and actually sinning epigenetically flipped a gene switch that was then passed on? Or God just stamps each soul with the Sin Nature when it's in the womb, presumably at the time of ensoulment or soon thereafter? I really can't see any sensible mechanism by which it's passed down.
Large gaps in Jesus life mean we don't know his inner and outer struggles. How'd his toilet training go? Did he wet the bed a few times? Did he use wrong words his parents laughed about as he learned to speak? Did he have erotic dreams, masturbate, have to establish control of his sexuality like every adolescent? Did he get teased by others, and have the range of emotions that accompany them? Did he get sunburnt, nauseated, diarrhea? Etc.
Most or all of that stuff falls into the category of morally neutral. I don't see the problem.
As I do not believe the first few chapters of Genesis to be factual, why would I believe in the concept of original sin ?
You might believe that those chapters render in myth a truth of human nature.
But God knew what was going to happen, why bother to make a rule that you know would be disobeyed
First of all, saying God "knew it would be disobeyed" is to place God in time--first he's here, looking ahead, but still making bad decisions, oh no! change your mind!; then he's there, and everybody's saying "I told you so." But if God is throughout time at once (from his perspective), then he isn't fucking up. He is doing something, and we are doing something, and those things interact. We may regret the interaction, particularly as the pain that follows becomes obvious to us (who are stuck in time and incapable of full God-like knowledge--though we can't say we weren't warned!; but he evidently sees/saw/will see some value in it anyway.
And what is that value? I think it is freedom. Coerced action is pretty worthless as a barometer of what the coercee feels and values. Free choice demonstrates what you feel, believe, value. And free choice can only be demonstrated if it's, well, free. And it has to cost something, or we're back in the world of soft baby toys and all the corners filed off. A choice that costs nothing means nothing.
What God did was to give us freedom. He gave us fair warning, too. When we fucked it up, that was on us. But then God went one step further, and made even that fuck-up grounds for an astonishing redemption.
As for the idea that we can blame our actions on our spiritual parasite (sin nature) and get out of responsibility that way, that is very much like saying, "It's not my fault, Officer. I was drunk."
If you prefer to blame your distant ancestors, take the epigenetic analogy and assume they made choices that gave you a nasty, nasty temper (as well as a strong taste for drink). The officer is STILL not going to let you off after you knock your kids around. Original sin is demonstrably resistable, we resist it every day. It's the times we DON'T resist it that terrible things happen. And that is clearly on us, the individuals.
If you prefer to blame your distant ancestors, take the epigenetic analogy and assume they made choices that gave you a nasty, nasty temper (as well as a strong taste for drink). The officer is STILL not going to let you off after you knock your kids around. Original sin is demonstrably resistable, we resist it every day. It's the times we DON'T resist it that terrible things happen. And that is clearly on us, the individuals.
In which case Occam's Razor would say -- why have it at all?
Why have what? I was refuting a specific objection.
If you mean the theory of original sin, one very useful thing it does is to, er, comfort parents, like me, who see their beautiful innocent wee babe learn to lie at eight months old, when he is still pre-verbal! but not pre-communicative. And then you watch with dismay as this child that you love with all your being goes on to develop precisely the same internal breaks and cracks as every other human being you know, though in a unique-to=himself configuration, regardless of all your attempts to prevent it. The doctrine of original sin whispers in your ear and says, "Keep trying. You knew this was coming, and it's not down to your bad parenting (at least, it better not be!). Your child is a sinner, yes, but he is also redeemable and redeemed by Christ." And I feel a little better.
Seriously, was I the only parent saddened (though not surprised) to see the emergence of all the same devils (metaphorical, here!) in my child that beset me? It's a childhood milestone I wish I could skip.
Why have what? I was refuting a specific objection.
If you mean the theory of original sin, one very useful thing it does is to, er, comfort parents, like me, who see their beautiful innocent wee babe learn to lie at eight months old, when he is still pre-verbal! but not pre-communicative. And then you watch with dismay as this child that you love with all your being goes on to develop precisely the same internal breaks and cracks as every other human being you know, though in a unique-to=himself configuration, regardless of all your attempts to prevent it. The doctrine of original sin whispers in your ear and says, "Keep trying. You knew this was coming, and it's not down to your bad parenting (at least, it better not be!). Your child is a sinner, yes, but he is also redeemable and redeemed by Christ." And I feel a little better.
Seriously, was I the only parent saddened (though not surprised) to see the emergence of all the same devils (metaphorical, here!) in my child that beset me? It's a childhood milestone I wish I could skip.
My children didn't show those things. I was harshly disciplined (lots of violence, lots of guilt) as a child such that we raised children without negative consequences. Not perfectly but that's what we did. Everything about positives and not giving them guilt. And thank God given some life experiences they've had.
The Jesus stories about salvation were handled like watching TV commercials: they're trying to sell you things, some of it is okay, much of it wrong. The message being: treat others kindly, as you'd have them treat you. Which includes how we treated them.
Don’t think you understood me. Unless you mean your kids were sinless? I didn’t guilt trip mine either, but there is nothing you can do to prevent all brokenness. Dear knows I tried.
There is such a volume to be said about this that one is somewhat reluctant to put a toe in the water. On the one hand I find myself agreeing with the critics of Original Sin as historically argued but at the same time finding it makes a relevant contribution to a discussion on the nature of the human condition. Its concepts are not so remote from assumptions in secular social science. (I try to approach the issue from the perspective of evolutionary biology).
Respecting more traditional theology, like most doctrinal theories it is helpful to consider the context. As has been pointed out, Adam's sin is not a major part of the Jewish narrative. No reference is made to it in Christ's ministry, but Adam suddenly pops up in Corinthians and Romans having been absent from the very early chapters of Genesis. ISTM that Paul's central purpose is to argue that both Jews and Gentiles have been justified by Christ, which is why Adam, humanity's common ancestor, enters the argument, as the apostle asserts: "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (1. Corinthians 15: 42). To my mind that trans-cultural universalist claim is wonderfully liberating.
IMO the negative understanding of Original Sin comes from a mis-reading the first two Chapters of Romans, which arises from Paul's desire to be inclusive of Jews and Gentiles and to emphasise the importance of faith as the key to salvation. His argument in chapters 1 and 2 is that the gentiles are a terrible lot by listing popular Jewish prejudices about them, ( which Jewish Christians could well endorse), but then argues the Jews are just as bad. Paul's purpose, however, is less to press universal condemnation than equality, because his purpose is to present Christ as the Second Adam whose blameless life saves all though his all-powerful all-redeeming grace.
Original Sin can be taken in two very different ways: a wrathful God irrationally angry that humans are no better than they are capable of being; or modelling God as a father who understands human frailty and does his best to mitigate the consequences: to seek and save the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Lastly, for now, Original Sin does not preclude a doctrine of Original Goodness. Indeed, it could be argued that it is in the tension between the two that our human nature resides.
As I do not believe the first few chapters of Genesis to be factual, why would I believe in the concept of original sin ?
You might believe that those chapters render in myth a truth of human nature.
But God knew what was going to happen, why bother to make a rule that you know would be disobeyed
First of all, saying God "knew it would be disobeyed" is to place God in time--first he's here, looking ahead, but still making bad decisions, oh no! change your mind!; then he's there, and everybody's saying "I told you so." But if God is throughout time at once (from his perspective), then he isn't fucking up. He is doing something, and we are doing something, and those things interact. We may regret the interaction, particularly as the pain that follows becomes obvious to us (who are stuck in time and incapable of full God-like knowledge--though we can't say we weren't warned!; but he evidently sees/saw/will see some value in it anyway.
And what is that value? I think it is freedom. Coerced action is pretty worthless as a barometer of what the coercee feels and values. Free choice demonstrates what you feel, believe, value. And free choice can only be demonstrated if it's, well, free. And it has to cost something, or we're back in the world of soft baby toys and all the corners filed off. A choice that costs nothing means nothing.
What God did was to give us freedom. He gave us fair warning, too. When we fucked it up, that was on us. But then God went one step further, and made even that fuck-up grounds for an astonishing redemption.
How can God be throughout time in His now? That would mean that all infinite nows at every now from eternity have already happened in His now wouldn't it? Every now from eternity for every Planck point, regardless of the infinite paradoxes caused by the relativity of simultaneity is in His now. Surely?
Given that Augustine's doctrine of Original sin was hammered out in his dispute with Pelagius, how does this shape our understanding? I read the wikipedia page on the controversy this morning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism, and one point made is that what Pelagius believed is probably not much different from what some good Eastern Church fathers believed.
I'm rather pleased that Augustine prevailed over Pelagius, because Original Sin makes space for the acceptance and understanding
of human frailty, which, incidentally, was recognised in God's Covenant with Noah and in. the sign of the rainbow. Pelagianism, by contrast, places a huge amount of responsibility on an individual for any moral infraction, and I'm not a fan of excessive asceticism. (I don't, of course, agree with Pelagius' treatment, having officially lost the argument).
Given that Augustine's doctrine of Original sin was hammered out in his dispute with Pelagius, how does this shape our understanding? I read the wikipedia page on the controversy this morning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism, and one point made is that what Pelagius believed is probably not much different from what some good Eastern Church fathers believed.
From the first link:
human beings have the freedom to choose how they live their lives and that grace comes to those who do good things, as opposed to those who believe the right doctrines.
Just leave out , as opposed to those who believe the right doctrines
Your point, please @Bill_Noble ? Enquiring minds need to know.
Apologies for the late reply:
@Arethosemyfeet suggested that @Martin54 had posted an ableist comment. I was indicating that this is a bit of a stretch as Martin has posted on the Black Dog thread over in All Saints (although I did not spell that out). As have others, including @Arethosemyfeet and myself.
As I do not believe the first few chapters of Genesis to be factual, why would I believe in the concept of original sin ?
While the first chapters of Genesis are not historically or scientifically factual, they do present truths about the relationship between God and creation and in particular humans. That said, I agree: I do not accept the doctrine of original sin.
I don't believe our Lord's parables describe actual people and events. But it would be foolish to for that reason discount them as a means of understanding what he wants us to know and do in the world.
As for the idea that we can blame our actions on our spiritual parasite (sin nature) and get out of responsibility that way, that is very much like saying, "It's not my fault, Officer. I was drunk."
I'm told that a man may be drunk to the point of not being responsible for his actions. (Not speaking from any personal experience here, you understand).
In which case I'd tend to say that to the extent that he's not culpable for the bad decisions he made when he was drunk, he's culpable for putting himself into that state.
But what if someone else put him in that state ? In the extreme case, if someone kidnapped him and held his mouth open while pouring strong drink into him, is that someone not responsible for the decisions he makes when totally out-of-his-mind plastered ?
The Christian narrative depends on Adam having "put himself into that state". Which, if you accept the literal truth of the Genesis story, he did. But as a non-literal pointer to the truth that our natural selves are not perfectly virtuous, that responsibility doesn't carry across.
Original sin is demonstrably resistable, we resist it every day. It's the times we DON'T resist it that terrible things happen. And that is clearly on us, the individuals.
What sort of sadist creates beings who have to spend every day resisting desires that it will never in any circumstance be morally legitimate to satisfy ?
The combination of a good creator and evil inbuilt human desires is just incoherent.
As I do not believe the first few chapters of Genesis to be factual, why would I believe in the concept of original sin ?
While the first chapters of Genesis are not historically or scientifically factual, they do present truths about the relationship between God and creation and in particular humans. That said, I agree: I do not accept the doctrine of original sin.
As for the idea that we can blame our actions on our spiritual parasite (sin nature) and get out of responsibility that way, that is very much like saying, "It's not my fault, Officer. I was drunk."
I'm told that a man may be drunk to the point of not being responsible for his actions. (Not speaking from any personal experience here, you understand).
In which case I'd tend to say that to the extent that he's not culpable for the bad decisions he made when he was drunk, he's culpable for putting himself into that state.
But what if someone else put him in that state ? In the extreme case, if someone kidnapped him and held his mouth open while pouring strong drink into him, is that someone not responsible for the decisions he makes when totally out-of-his-mind plastered ?
The Christian narrative depends on Adam having "put himself into that state". Which, if you accept the literal truth of the Genesis story, he did. But as a non-literal pointer to the truth that our natural selves are not perfectly virtuous, that responsibility doesn't carry across.
Original sin is demonstrably resistable, we resist it every day. It's the times we DON'T resist it that terrible things happen. And that is clearly on us, the individuals.
What sort of sadist creates beings who have to spend every day resisting desires that it will never in any circumstance be morally legitimate to satisfy ?
The combination of a good creator and evil inbuilt human desires is just incoherent.
Not if inbuilt by evolution of grounded being. But agreed with that proviso.
That the thing about people is that if you give them one simple rule, the first thing they'll do when your back is turned is poke behind the "do not touch" sign.
This is why old-fashioned people (like me) believe in the existence of the devil. Besides the fact that the Bible treats him as a real creature, I mean.
No, God did not create the sin nature. It is not in fact a thing-in-itself, but rather a corruption of the good nature God did create in human beings. And that corruption is owing to a combination of the work of a malignant enemy (the devil, who has reasons to want to fuck us up) and our own crass stupidity in giving way to him.
It makes no sense to lay responsibility for this at God's feet. He could not have prevented it without completely infantilizing the human race.
This is why old-fashioned people (like me) believe in the existence of the devil. Besides the fact that the Bible treats him as a real creature, I mean.
No, God did not create the sin nature. It is not in fact a thing-in-itself, but rather a corruption of the good nature God did create in human beings. And that corruption is owing to a combination of the work of a malignant enemy (the devil, who has reasons to want to fuck us up) and our own crass stupidity in giving way to him.
It makes no sense to lay responsibility for this at God's feet. He could not have prevented it without completely infantilizing the human race.
How did God create this good nature?
How does the work of a malignant enemy work?
And this crass stupidity of ours, that was in the good nature?
Comments
2. "just" can mean "only" (I was just asking about your mother). And "just" can mean "fair" (cognate with "justice") (It's not just that Bill can murder Ted without going to jail).
You might believe that those chapters render in myth a truth of human nature.
But if your parasite or disease or syndrome causes you to do something, in normal life that takes away a lot of your moral responsibility for doing it. (My Tourette's / my kleptomania / whatever made me do it...)
I'm also strangely reminded of an episode of Star Trek where Kirk is split (presumably by transporter malfunction ? Don't remember) into good-Kirk who's nice but ineffectual and bad-Kirk who's amoral and aggressive. And has to integrate with his other half rather than defeat it...
But God knew what was going to happen, why bother to make a rule that you know would be disobeyed
Excellent Russ. So, since 6025 years ago we've had this unnatural sin nature due to some supernatural agent. There again our pre-sin nature is unnatural too of course, created shortly before. There can't be a natural explanation obviously.
I agree. I am late here, but my engineer head finds the 7 deadlies useful as 'dimensions' of sin - like r-g-b are dimensions of colour, x-y-z or r-theta-phi are dimensions of space, salt-sweet-bitter-sour-(umami?) are dimensions of taste, and the Fourier components of a complex waveform are the decomposed dimensions of that waveform. The 7 deadlies might not be orthogonal descriptors (pride / vanity...a bit hard to extricate but perhaps that's my iffy technique), which messes up the metaphor a little, but I find it useful to think that way.
A tall hedge. God did make thorns to grow up. Perhaps the hedge was of thorny bushes. Maybe there was no gate on the other sides. Maybe it's round.
What, that we're all projecting, self justifying hypocrites? The little guy riding the elephant always knows that when the elephant's asleep.
Does this have any 'spiritual' consequences by the way?
Most or all of that stuff falls into the category of morally neutral. I don't see the problem.
First of all, saying God "knew it would be disobeyed" is to place God in time--first he's here, looking ahead, but still making bad decisions, oh no! change your mind!; then he's there, and everybody's saying "I told you so." But if God is throughout time at once (from his perspective), then he isn't fucking up. He is doing something, and we are doing something, and those things interact. We may regret the interaction, particularly as the pain that follows becomes obvious to us (who are stuck in time and incapable of full God-like knowledge--though we can't say we weren't warned!; but he evidently sees/saw/will see some value in it anyway.
And what is that value? I think it is freedom. Coerced action is pretty worthless as a barometer of what the coercee feels and values. Free choice demonstrates what you feel, believe, value. And free choice can only be demonstrated if it's, well, free. And it has to cost something, or we're back in the world of soft baby toys and all the corners filed off. A choice that costs nothing means nothing.
What God did was to give us freedom. He gave us fair warning, too. When we fucked it up, that was on us. But then God went one step further, and made even that fuck-up grounds for an astonishing redemption.
In which case Occam's Razor would say -- why have it at all?
If you mean the theory of original sin, one very useful thing it does is to, er, comfort parents, like me, who see their beautiful innocent wee babe learn to lie at eight months old, when he is still pre-verbal! but not pre-communicative. And then you watch with dismay as this child that you love with all your being goes on to develop precisely the same internal breaks and cracks as every other human being you know, though in a unique-to=himself configuration, regardless of all your attempts to prevent it. The doctrine of original sin whispers in your ear and says, "Keep trying. You knew this was coming, and it's not down to your bad parenting (at least, it better not be!). Your child is a sinner, yes, but he is also redeemable and redeemed by Christ." And I feel a little better.
Seriously, was I the only parent saddened (though not surprised) to see the emergence of all the same devils (metaphorical, here!) in my child that beset me? It's a childhood milestone I wish I could skip.
If all the things that happened were written down, I don't suppose the whole world could contain the number of books that would be written.
Thanks John.
The Jesus stories about salvation were handled like watching TV commercials: they're trying to sell you things, some of it is okay, much of it wrong. The message being: treat others kindly, as you'd have them treat you. Which includes how we treated them.
Point stands.
Respecting more traditional theology, like most doctrinal theories it is helpful to consider the context. As has been pointed out, Adam's sin is not a major part of the Jewish narrative. No reference is made to it in Christ's ministry, but Adam suddenly pops up in Corinthians and Romans having been absent from the very early chapters of Genesis. ISTM that Paul's central purpose is to argue that both Jews and Gentiles have been justified by Christ, which is why Adam, humanity's common ancestor, enters the argument, as the apostle asserts: "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (1. Corinthians 15: 42). To my mind that trans-cultural universalist claim is wonderfully liberating.
IMO the negative understanding of Original Sin comes from a mis-reading the first two Chapters of Romans, which arises from Paul's desire to be inclusive of Jews and Gentiles and to emphasise the importance of faith as the key to salvation. His argument in chapters 1 and 2 is that the gentiles are a terrible lot by listing popular Jewish prejudices about them, ( which Jewish Christians could well endorse), but then argues the Jews are just as bad. Paul's purpose, however, is less to press universal condemnation than equality, because his purpose is to present Christ as the Second Adam whose blameless life saves all though his all-powerful all-redeeming grace.
Original Sin can be taken in two very different ways: a wrathful God irrationally angry that humans are no better than they are capable of being; or modelling God as a father who understands human frailty and does his best to mitigate the consequences: to seek and save the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Lastly, for now, Original Sin does not preclude a doctrine of Original Goodness. Indeed, it could be argued that it is in the tension between the two that our human nature resides.
How can God be throughout time in His now? That would mean that all infinite nows at every now from eternity have already happened in His now wouldn't it? Every now from eternity for every Planck point, regardless of the infinite paradoxes caused by the relativity of simultaneity is in His now. Surely?
Quite why God, knowing what he does/did, still allows/allowed us to proceed, is an insoluble mystery.
Perhaps he's a masochist.
The concept of Dualism appeals more and more each day...
Questions raised in the story of Noah.
Or in the earlier story of that chap in the Sumerian legends, Utnapishtim (Ziusudra), who was involved in the flooding of Dilmun business...
Given that Augustine's doctrine of Original sin was hammered out in his dispute with Pelagius, how does this shape our understanding? I read the wikipedia page on the controversy this morning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism, and one point made is that what Pelagius believed is probably not much different from what some good Eastern Church fathers believed.
of human frailty, which, incidentally, was recognised in God's Covenant with Noah and in. the sign of the rainbow. Pelagianism, by contrast, places a huge amount of responsibility on an individual for any moral infraction, and I'm not a fan of excessive asceticism. (I don't, of course, agree with Pelagius' treatment, having officially lost the argument).
From the first link: Just leave out , as opposed to those who believe the right doctrines
There's no horse race between grace and works.
Apologies for the late reply:
@Arethosemyfeet suggested that @Martin54 had posted an ableist comment. I was indicating that this is a bit of a stretch as Martin has posted on the Black Dog thread over in All Saints (although I did not spell that out). As have others, including @Arethosemyfeet and myself.
We are all very much in the same ship.
While the first chapters of Genesis are not historically or scientifically factual, they do present truths about the relationship between God and creation and in particular humans. That said, I agree: I do not accept the doctrine of original sin.
I'm told that a man may be drunk to the point of not being responsible for his actions. (Not speaking from any personal experience here, you understand).
In which case I'd tend to say that to the extent that he's not culpable for the bad decisions he made when he was drunk, he's culpable for putting himself into that state.
But what if someone else put him in that state ? In the extreme case, if someone kidnapped him and held his mouth open while pouring strong drink into him, is that someone not responsible for the decisions he makes when totally out-of-his-mind plastered ?
The Christian narrative depends on Adam having "put himself into that state". Which, if you accept the literal truth of the Genesis story, he did. But as a non-literal pointer to the truth that our natural selves are not perfectly virtuous, that responsibility doesn't carry across.
What sort of sadist creates beings who have to spend every day resisting desires that it will never in any circumstance be morally legitimate to satisfy ?
The combination of a good creator and evil inbuilt human desires is just incoherent.
What truths?
Not if inbuilt by evolution of grounded being. But agreed with that proviso.
No, God did not create the sin nature. It is not in fact a thing-in-itself, but rather a corruption of the good nature God did create in human beings. And that corruption is owing to a combination of the work of a malignant enemy (the devil, who has reasons to want to fuck us up) and our own crass stupidity in giving way to him.
It makes no sense to lay responsibility for this at God's feet. He could not have prevented it without completely infantilizing the human race.
How did God create this good nature?
How does the work of a malignant enemy work?
And this crass stupidity of ours, that was in the good nature?