The Christian church's attempt to explain why, even though people throughout history have known the basic difference between right and wrong, and are aware that doing good brings forth good results while doing bad tends to make everyone miserable, they still continue to treat each other so terribly.

As explanations go it's held up pretty well through the years; its great advantage is that is deals with the problem of evil without getting rid of God's omnitpotence, human free will, or personal responsibility. It allows us to maintain both a cosmic pride and an equally cosmic humility -- human beings are made in the divine image, but a flaw has been introduced that they cannot remove on their own.

Let's start with the assumption that God is in fact merciful, just, and benevolent, and view his actions in that light (and please note that this is but one of many possible takes on the doctrine):

• God is humanity's creator.
• Out of love for his creation he bestowed on us divine gifts which were not ours by right, but only made available to us through his generosity (the very definition of gift); those gifts being "the complete mastery of (our) passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, and the vision of God in the next life" (from The Catholic Encyclopedia).
• As was his right, God made the loyalty and obedience of the head of the human family - Adam - the condition by which we would continue to receive those gifts throughout perpetuity.
• God's love is therefore unconditional, but these particular gifts are not.
• Adam failed to hold up his end of this covenant and therefore those gifts were withdrawn, not only from him but from his children and heirs.
• It is a testament to God's unceasing love that he has nevertheless given us the means to regain those gifts in the person of Christ - something he was in no way bound or obligated to do, which can't be stressed enough.

OBJECTION ONE is an argument against the idea of sin itself: "If God were really good and truly loved us, he would not require anything from us that our failure to provide would bring about any sort of penalty." Since this doesn't apply to any human interaction (children often try that one out on their parents, with spectacularly unsuccessful results), it doesn't seem terribly sound to apply it to our relationship with God.

OBJECTION TWO: "The story of the Fall is internally inconsistent -- the fruit of the tree brought knowledge of Good and Evil, and without that knowledge one cannot sin. Therefore humanity's disobedience cannot be held against them." Obviously expulsion from the Garden cannot be a punishment inflicted on people who were incapable of comprehending their disobedience or its consequences. Therefore Adam and Eve had enough of a moral sense to know that disobeying God is evil, while obeying him is good. Some have speculated that the knowledge gained by eating the fruit may have been something humanity would gain on its own when it was ready, but of course that issue is pretty much moot.

OBJECTION THREE: "Why am I being punished for something I didn't do?". Some possible responses:

• We are all in some sense responsible for the deeds performed by the groups to which we belong - as an American, I shoulder some of the responsibility for the actions taken by my government. As a human being, I shoulder the responsibility of sin.
• We do participate in original sin to the extent that we perpetuate it. Every moment of our lives we are presented with Adam's choice, and more often than not we choose to evade our duties to ourselves, our fellow human beings, our world, and our Creator.

Though widespread, the doctrine of Original Sin is not embraced by all churches. Others maintain that human beings are born free of sin, and fall into sin when they (inevitably) fail to resist temptation once they have attained an age where they can reasonably be held accountable for their moral choices.

Original sin is a message of hope for our screwed-up world. It says that the world, and each person, is created to be good and beautiful, and that all the crap in the world (and in us) is an add-on, not part of our nature.

No matter what you believe, it's obvious that bad things happen. Are these bad things part of the nature of the universe, or are they an addition? The teaching of original sin says that bad things are not inherent to the universe--that the universe was created to be good and only became bad later on. This holds out the hope that the change could somehow be reversed and that harmony can someday be restored.

Since Saige's analogy of original crime is persuasive (albeit off-base), I'd like to present my own analogy.

• Your grandparents all come from one small town, where they all work in a toxic waste dump. Even though they knew that there was a good chance they would have health problems, they were lured to the town by good money. Unbeknowst to them, they all are affected by a mutation that predisposes their children to alcoholism.
• Your aunts, uncles, and parents all inherit this gene. They start drinking and showing signs of alcoholic behavior. When your grandparents express concern about their drinking problem, your uncles and aunts stop drinking. Your parents, on the other hand, get angry and decide not to see your grandparents anymore. After you're born, they're abusive to you because they're always drunk.
• You are born and raised into this alcoholic and abusive family, with a genetic predisposition to drink. Your chances of becoming an alcoholic and continuing the miserable chain are very high.
• Your grandparents are very concerned about you, and so one day they track you down, tell you about your family history, and offer to help you deal with your family and personal issues.

What happens now? That depends on how you react. But note a couple of things:

1. Your grandparents have both the ability and the desire to help you. They can tell you how you ended up the way you did and give you the tools to avoid a miserable life.
2. You're going to be suspicious of your grandparents because of what your parents told you about them, and your own upbringing is going to make it difficult to change.
3. Even if you go off with your grandparents, you're permanently stuck with the genetic predisposition toward alcoholism. Unlike them, you might never be able to enjoy a nice glass of wine without getting into trouble.
4. None of this is your fault! From the moment you were born, your parents' decisions set you up to have problems.
5. All of this is your responsibility. Even though you had a whole lot of past garbage dumped in your lap, you still have to choose whether to wallow in it or move on.

On a much lighter note, Original Sin is the title of Pandora's Box's first (and only) album.

The title reflect's Jim Steinman's whimsical nature and shocking sense of bluntness. The album itself is really good, although it's only available in the UK, since the label did an appallingly bad job marketing it, and utterly refused to sell it in the US.

Arguably, this is what doomed Pandora's Box, since the album sales in England were not all that great (the album catering to a less refined American taste and all), and although Steinman's music sold like hotcakes in America (Meat Loaf's Bat Out of Hell was the single best selling album until Michael Jackson's Thriller came out), the music didn't make it across the Pond until it hit the second-hand market.

Unsurprisingly, the song Original Sin is the title track on the album. It's also the third track on Meat Loaf's Welcome to the Neighborhood, and the contrast between the four female leads on the original and Meat Loaf on the cover version is ... interesting. It's hard to tell which I like more.

I've been searching for an original sin.
One with a twist and a bit of a spin.
And since I done all the old ones
'Til they've all been done in,
I'm endlessly searching
For an original sin...

The Original Sin

guitar strings;
to you the game
meant everything

In New Orleans
we dropped you off
and I got left behind
along with my best friend

too old to go
but too young
to just sit at home

this is all your fault
you ruined Boston for me
since this is your house
moreso than mine
I can't tell you to
get the fuck out

I'll just have to leave

you've forgotten
what makes a friend a friend

and what kept me from
running away from Boston
never coming back

never thinking about you again

"It is the soul that sins, and no other, that shall die; a son shall not share a father's guilt, nor a father his son's. The righteous man shall reap the fruit of his own righteousness, and the wicked man the fruit of his own wickedness." (Ezekiel, chapter 18, verse 20.)

"Say: 'Shall I seek a lord other than Allah, while He is the Lord of all things? No person earns any (sin) except against himself (only), and no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another. Then unto your Lord is your return, so He will tell you that wherein you have been differing.'" Qur'an 6:164.

Original sin was established in the 5th century A.D., under St. Augustine by influence from the Roman Catholic Church. It is one of the hottest debated topics between Jews, Christians and Muslims. Diffrences in view points are clearly evident.

Muslim theoligists unaminously tell us original sin was not Adam's fault alone, was not Eve's fault alone, but rather Satan's fault, both Adam and Eve share responibility of their disobedience to God. In Christianity, the blame falls on Eve. In Islam, the blame falls on Satan and on Adam and Eve forgetting God's command not to come near the tree.

The story can be seen in Genesis 2:4-3:24 and in the Qur'an 7:19-23 and 20:121-122.

The doctrine of Original Sin has many opponents, including many Christians, but this is largely because it is misunderstood. There are two principal definitions of original sin: the act of sinning committed by Adam and Eve, and the state that humanity is now in due to this sin. To add to Quizro's writeup:

OBJECTION FOUR: "How is Original Sin transmitted? How can a newborn, innocent of all action, 'get' original sin? Is it genetic or something?"

A RESPONSE: Original sin is not magical; it is not a literal stain; it is not a substance; it is not a virus; it is not genetic. When all humans are said to have original sin, it merely means that we are in a negative state--that we lack special graces that we don't truly deserve but that God initially gifted Adam: immortality, the guaranteed vision of God, freedom from disease, complete control over temptation while also having free will, etc.

So the rationalist's objection is thus invalid. The objection from those who quote Ezekiel 18:20 ("It is the soul that sins, and no other, that shall die; a son shall not share a father's guilt, nor a father his son's. The righteous man shall reap the fruit of his own righteousness, and the wicked man the fruit of his own wickedness") is also invalid, because original sin is not a punishment. It is merely a retraction of certain gifts because we don't deserve them. It is also important for Christians to always keep in mind that Original Sin, while real, is fairly unimportant compared to the great gift given to us that is much greater than what was taken away earlier: the love of Christ, and his death for us.

Aside from being a theological idea, and the title of Pandora's Box's only album (as mentioned elsewhere in this node), "Original Sin" is a song by Elton John.

"Original Sin" is the fifth track of Elton John's outstanding 2001 album "Songs From The West Coast". It was released as a single in 2002 in the UK and USA.

Well, that's the trivia dealt with, now I will share with you why I think this is one of Elton John's most beautiful songs. The album version is fairly unusual for an Elton John song due to the prominence of acoustic guitar. Whilst many of his songs feature guitars of some kind ("Rocket Man" springs to mind), the piano is the fundamental instrument. However, in "Original Sin" you have to wait one minute and fourteen seconds for there to be any piano at all. The introduction is a lovely piece of acoustic guitar music - beautifully delicate and very emotive. The first two verses and the first "pre-chorus" are backed by Rusty Anderson's gentle plucking and strumming. At this early stage of the song, it sounds very much like a traditional acoustic ballad. However, when the piano takes over at the chorus it begins to have the more classical Elton John sound.

Bernie Taupin's lyrics are, as ever, lovely and convey emotion very strongly. Taupin has a way of imparting very strong emotion into a listener and can conjure up some strong imagery. His lyrics have a sort of simplicity to them that genius. They also seem to reach into your soul and you interpret them in a way that is meaningful to your own life. For me, this song is about someone telling their love how they make them feel, maybe not out loud, but perhaps they are thinking to themself.

"I can't eat, can't sleep,
Still I hunger for you when you look at me,
That face, those eyes,
All the sinful pleasures deep inside."

This is a love and longing that seems to reach into every aspect of the person's life.

"Tell me how, you know now, the ways and means of getting in,
Underneath my skin,
Oh you were always my original sin,
And tell me why, I shudder inside, every time we begin,
This dangerous game,
Oh you were always my original sin."

There seems to be some sort of pain associated with this love. It is called a "dangerous game" after all. It is as if the person just cannot help how they feel about their love. We've probably all been there.

I'm not sure if Bernie Taupin's lyrics would have so much impact without Elton John's flawless way of expressing them. The two men are a perfect team. Elton, as usual, finds the perfect way of setting the lyrics to music. The key of the song is D-flat, which has a richness to it that adds to the power of the emotion the lyrics are conveying. The melody itself has a sort of bittersweet beauty to it, made all the better by Elton's warm, yet aching delivery.

I like Elton's voice nowadays. He does not attempt to hit the extremely high notes of his youth (such as in "Bennie And The Jets" and "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road"), but instead settles for a lower register. That is not to say I don't like his voice before - I do, don't get me wrong. I just feel that now he conveys a lot more power and emotion than he used to.

My love of "Original Sin" (the song of course!) is not wholly derived from the album version. Although it is very good, my favourite version is Elton's solo piano version. The one I have heard is from the "Last Call With Carson Daly" show of March 22nd, 2002. I only have a low quality mp3 of the song someone recorded from the television, but the quality of the performance by far belies the quality of the recording. This song was made to be a solo piano piece I think. There is no band, just Elton and his piano, but the song does not suffer from the lack of other instruments, more, it feeds off it and rises to new levels. Elton's playing is exquisite, as you would expect from someone with such mastery of the piano. His left and right hands combine together in a very flowing way, rather than simply using the left hand in a percussive fashion. This flowing sound pulls the listener into the song and the rich sound washes over you.

Elton's vocal performance in the live version of this song blows his studio attempt away. Without his band, when it is just him and his piano, his vocals have a much more intimate quality to them. They seem far more powerful and emotive than the studio version. In my opinion, this performance might well be the best I have heard Elton sing. Certainly it is my favourite of his live vocal performances.

As you may have realised, I love this song! The live solo version is outstanding, though the only criticism I would make is that it ends a little weakly for me. It doesn't "wind down" enough - but I am just being picky. The Elton John/Bernie Taupin team has, I believe, with the live solo version of "Original Sin", produced as near a perfect song as you can get.

Bibliography:

www.eltonscafe.com - (where I found the mp3 I mentioned)

www.eltonography.com

Original Sin: an explanation for those who don't believe all that "God" stuff

First I should explain the word theism. "Theism" is the error of confusing metaphors for God with the real thing: confusing the signifier with the thing signified. To a certain extent, theism is an unavoidable error in talking about God since God is ultimately ineffable. God is infinite and our language is finite.

Just because something is infinite, however, does not mean it is unknowable or nonexistent. A few examples from elementary geometry should suffice to clear this up. Geometry uses as pure axioms a number of infinite concepts: the "line" , the "plane" and the "point". A line (as opposed to line segment) is both infinitely long and infinitely divisible. We draw line segments on a black board or printed page to signify a line (sometimes with little arrows on the end to remind us that it is supposed to represent a line, not a line segment). Similarly, a "point" properly understood is not the smudge on the blackboard we use to indicate the location of the point. As Euclid defined it, a point is that which has no part. See Euclid's Elements: Book I, Definition 1. Obviously, in order to be visible, the smudge on the blackboard or bold dot on the printed page has to have "parts" (be divisible) and therefore isn't really a point.

In geometry, confusing the sign with the thing signified can lead us into errors. When we draw two parallel line segments, it seems intuitively obvious that if the segments are extended infinitely in both directions, the two line segments never meet. Assuming this to be true, as Euclid does in Euclid's Elements: Book I, Postulate 5, gives us one kind of geometry (which we call Euclidean). Assuming it to be false, however, gives us another kind of geometry, Non-Euclidean geometry. Non-Euclidean geometry is not only interesting but has some useful applications, such as Einstein's adoption of Riemann's geometry of a positively curved, finite and unbounded space to describe gravity.

Some of the errors of theism are as obvious as confusing a smudge with a point or a line segment with a line. Those include all anthropocentric descriptions of God. Obviously, Michelangelo's paintings of God in the Sistine Chapel, as a white-haired old man wearing a diaphanous white shirt which covers but still reveals his fat ass, are not accurate pictures of God. While these decorations may be beautiful and reveal some truths about God, in truth, God is not old, male, or subject to buggery, no matter how lovingly Michelangelo painted his butt.

Other errors of theism are more subtle, as subtle as Euclid's choice of uncurved space in Postulate 5. Generally, they involve drawing unwarranted conclusions from anthropocentric metaphors for God. These metaphors include talk about God as if God has human emotions, desires, and intentions, talk about "God's wrath" or "God's love". While these metaphors have literary value and can convey something meaningful and true (I am particularly fond of the metaphors of love and forgiveness) they can lead us into error, or poor "choices" (the meaning of heresy in Greek).

The Doctrine of Original Sin

The doctrine of Original Sin is an exegesis or rational interpretation of the Genesis story of Adam and Eve and the Fall of Man in the third chapter of the Book of Genesis. It begins with a conversation between the first woman (as yet unnamed) and a "crafty" serpent, about the fruit of a certain tree in the Garden of Eden. God had prohibited the man and the woman from eating the fruit of the tree. The serpent told the woman that she would not die if she touched the fruit, but rather "when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Genesis 3:5. Initially, the only effect was that they realized they were naked and felt ashamed. Then they "heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze" and hid from him. Genesis 3:8. God, apparently unaware of what has transpired, calls them out and demands an explanation. The man blames it on the woman, and the woman blames it on the serpent, and God curses them all. They are no longer immortal, they have to work for a living, and they are driven out of the Garden. God also declares that the man shall rule over the woman. Genesis 3:16. Then the man names the woman "Eve" "because she was the mother of all living". Genesis 3:20.

This story is broadly mythological and can be interpreted in a number of ways. It is rife with mind-breaking questions, for example: did God lie when he told the man and the woman that they would die if they touched the fruit, or did God already know he was going to take immortality away from them when they disobeyed him? If so, why go through the trouble of telling them not to? (This is the question of free will).

Late Jewish apocalyptic writings attributed the world's corruption to the fall of Satan or Lucifer. In this story, brought vividly to the English-speaking world by John Milton in his epic poem, Paradise Lost, the serpent's motives in deceiving Eve can be traced back to a revolution in Heaven, and a prior casting-out by God: the Fall of Lucifer and his accomplices in treason. The other religions founded on the Genesis story, however, Judaism and Islam, don't subscribe to the doctrine of Original Sin.

The doctrine of Original Sin is mired in some of the worst aspects of Christianity; which include a primitive, irrational theism, misogyny, and a sick revulsion for our sensual, physical selves, and in particular, our sexuality. The peculiarly Christian (and peculiarly ugly) interpretation of the