Original sin

The two words never appear together in the biblical text.

The Dictionary for Theological Interpretation commences its discussion of Original Sin thus:
The doctrine of “original sin” conforms to the stereotype of “church dogma”: a “rational” theory made authoritative by tradition and institutional decree; a heavy superstructure whose alleged biblical foundations most modern exegetes will not recognize; and literal propositions unpalatable to modern sensitivities (and even more so for late moderns), which can only be “saved” through reinterpretation.

Well, we could reinterpret it, or we could ditch it. It was a real shock to me many years ago to learn that this is a dogma supported by neither the Orthodox Church nor the two other monotheistic religions. Only the Western Church has held this aberration of scripture up as something to be bowed down to. Why? Well, it’s an excellent means of control of course. No wonder Philip Pullman picks up a pen and wields it (in his fictional His Dark Materials) to fight this monstrosity. The Church's message for centuries has been e baptised and be “in” — or else. Being 'in' is the most dangerous of beliefs.

I don’t feel I personally can discount the Edenic story that etiological tale designed to explain why childbirth is painful, weeds grow faster than vegetables, snakes are unpleasant to women, etc. quite that slickly. This beautiful story of the loss of innocence that humanity experiences and the child grows to adult-hood; the tender love and protection of the Creator even after this transition; this is something to be cherished, not used as a stick.

Back to Prose

This is a personal blog website and I have no interest in tracking visitors.
Cookies are used to make the site work.
Requests to third-party servers are anonymised so no user-identifying information is shared.