>>> "frances bolton" <fbolton at chuma.cas.usf.edu> 12/23/99 01:52PM >>>
Charles wrote:
<<Furthermore, what are you talking about that it is not textually based ? The story of Adam and Eve is that they disobeyed God , seeming to fit the definition of "sin", and were cast out of the Garden of Eden. Not that I care about defending Augustine's interpretation, but it is pretty obvious that there is some textual basis for such an interpretation.>>
Well, then why doesn't Judaism have the same notion of original sin? Ken was, if I remember correctly, writing about original sin, which is a very specific thing. You seem to be conflating sin and original sin. There's folks sinning throughout the bible, but nowhere is it suggested that they are doing so because of some inherent sinful nature.
((((((((((
CB: Would seem that Judaism has a different interpretation than Augustine, no ? Seems the Judaic version is that it was a sin or transgression of God's law and command, and since Adam and Eve were the original people, it was the original sin in some sense.
I was the "original" one on this thread to mention sin in commenting on Yoshie's post. Here's what I said:
***** [Joan] Copjec and [Jacob] Rogozinski are both concerned, though in different ways, to save Kant from his optimistic turn in order to liberate from his text what they consider his crucial insight: the ineradicable evil of human nature. But if this is what they are looking for, why not look to Luther and Calvin, who do truly assert just such a doctrine?
(((((((((
CB: Hell, why not look to the snake in the garden and original sin, the original source of Luther and Calvin's doctrine. The idea of ineradicable evil of human nature is not original with these guys.
((((((((((((((
Then next, Ken claimed there was no textual basis for Augustine's doctrine of original sin. Not that I am trying to get into defending Augustine's interpretation, but it is not quite accurate to say that there is NO textual basis for Augustine's interpretation. No disagreement if you are saying the Judaic original interpretations were not the same as Augustine's.
By the way, I also said in my post that Augustine' s doctrine is self-contradictory.
It would seem that Judaism's interpretation and Augustines' differs not on the originality of the sin , but that Adam and Eve's descendants were cursed by their sin. On the other hand, I believe the Judaic interpretation or even text says that humans lost eternal life by the sin, so Adam and Eve's ancestors did pay a price for the sin. An interesting paradox is that in the Judaic text, Adam and Eve ate fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so this first sin was the founding of morality.
My main point in commenting on the passage Yoshie posted was not to argue that Augustine was right or wrong, but that the two authors didn't seem to have very original ideas, but rather their ideas were as old as the idea of original sin. In other words, they seemed to be putting forth refried Christian doctrine as modern theory of some type.
I don't believe in sin period, myself, Judeo or Christian.
CB