No true apatheist

[ProfessorDavey]

How are you defining sin here?

It isn't how I define it that matters (actually it isn't a term I, nor most atheists, tend to use). The issue is how christian denominations define it.

Are you not aware that the church did without the ruthless theology of Augustine for several centuries and that fact alone torpedoes your thesis of the centrality of original sin.

No it doesn't and your point is irrelevant. In the earliest centuries post-1stC the notion of christian doctrine was in flux and, indeed we have very little information as to what doctrinal elements were, and were not, to the fore. The key point is that once some level of orthodoxy of christian doctrine was established in the late 4thC the notion of original sin, as I have described it, became embedded. And of course this wasn't some kind of Jonny come lately idea, bit one that links to the earliest of Jewish theology from the Garden of Eden myth.

Were you not aware of ''through Adam but through christ'' theology namely the several references to Christ's overturning of the effects of Adam. I'll admit that leaves us with the dismissal of Adult and deliberate sin as ''i'm only human''. That's an original sin theory turned on it's head and used as an excuse.

Sure, of course, no one is arguing that the central concept of christianity is that through Jesus you can be redeemed and saved from the sin established by the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden - that's the whole point. But the key element here is that sin is 'inherited' and that a person is born in sin regardless of whether or not that person has done anything wrong, which, in the case of new born babies, they won't have done. Yet in the eyes of christian doctrine those new born babies are already in sin.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It isn't how I define it that matters (actually it isn't a term I, nor most atheists, tend to use). The issue is how christian denominations define it.

First of all your definition determines whether you are straw manning. Secondly, Sin is deliberate offence against another, That is clear for instance in the anglican confession before God ''We have sinned against you and against our fellow man'', a confession that doesn't mention original sin. Atheists I have known reject the word sin because they believe there is no god to sin against but sin is not just against God but against anybody. Atheists here are straw manning.

No it doesn't and your point is irrelevant. In the earliest centuries post-1stC the notion of christian doctrine was in flux and, indeed we have very little information as to what doctrinal elements were, and were not, to the fore. The key point is that once some level of orthodoxy of christian doctrine was established in the late 4thC the notion of original sin, as I have described it, became embedded.

But not, I think in the eastern church in the theologies of Chrysosthom, Nyssa, Nazianzus etc.
Sure, of course, no one is arguing that the central concept of christianity is that through Jesus you can be redeemed and saved from the sin established by the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden - that's the whole point.[/quote] That says nothing, I think you'll admit, though about the sin committed by each individual.

But the key element here is that sin is 'inherited' and that a person is born in sin regardless of whether or not that person has done anything wrong, which, in the case of new born babies, they won't have done. Yet in the eyes of christian doctrine those new born babies are already in sin.

The Key element is that all have fallen short though, through commission, through omission through deliberate fault  (ref Anglican confession). Why is the original sin of Adam not mentioned here? Because Christ has overturned that as Paul mentions in the Epistle. The sins that we ''Die in'' according to John's Gospel are ours.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you now claiming that only Tory ministers are sinners?

No, all are sinners...but they are a public example of sin deliberately committed, the corruption of sin leading to more commission and no public display of repentance.

[Outrider]

Changing the name could not have been critical to his overall intent. Poor defence.

Again, it doesn't need defending, it stands on its own merits, and holds up well.

But you have nothing which prevents you from straw manning the Gospel

Which interpretation of the Gospel have I given which isn't actually held by someone, somewhere?

What does that mean.

Exactly what it says - we don't have some overarcing text that defines any sort of unified belief system to which we must adhere.

In this day and age the bible doesn't have to be followed by anyone.

And yet elements of it, and other holy books, are written into law - and held as cultural expectations - all over the world without any rational justification.

So what do you mean?Give an example.

This board is full of them. You keep referring to Professor Dawkins as though that's an argument, rather that actually addressing any of the points that he, and others, make.

Only God can forgive sin.

Assert that the imaginary figure can forgive the imaginary stain... what was it about turtles all the way down?

But more importantly how can a con be a bad thing, if there is no crime.

No crime? Moral or legislative? Misogyny, homophobia, institutional cover-ups of abuse...

So far you have a con is wrong, is a crime and therefore a sin, sin is apparently made up and so a con cannot be a crime and yet you are the authority which wants power over it's identification and condemnation.

No, so far we have a con - a con without any significant ill-effect is practical joke, but this is a bit more than whoppee cushion. Whether a crime is a sin or not is a meaningless contention - sin isn't a thing. Whether something is a crime is only partially linked to whether any given community thinks the con is morally wrong or not.

Things only have power as long as you let 'em.

No, things have power so long as other people are electing the officials that will enforce those things, or people are selling guns to those who will enforce those things.

What we say is that wrong doing is what exerts it's authority.

What?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again, it doesn't need defending, it stands on its own merits, and holds up well.

Saying something doesn't need defending because an Ad Hom here and there will clinch it isn't very good. In fact that's a little bit courtiers reply isn't it.

So aside from that what are it's merits?

[ProfessorDavey]

The Key element is that all have fallen short though, through commission, through omission through deliberate fault  (ref Anglican confession). Why is the original sin of Adam not mentioned here?

Except, of course, it is.

Article IX "Of Original or Birth-sin" from the 39 articles of religion of Anglicanism:

'it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation.'

That's pretty clear - linked to Adam, inherited, appears at birth regardless of whether that person has done anything wrong (which a new born baby won't have done) and punishable by wrath and damnation.

[ProfessorDavey]

Except, of course, it is.

Article IX "Of Original or Birth-sin" from the 39 articles of religion of Anglicanism:

'it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation.'

That's pretty clear - linked to Adam, inherited, appears at birth regardless of whether that person has done anything wrong (which a new born baby won't have done) and punishable by wrath and damnation.

And clearer still in catholicism - from the catechism of the catholic church:

'By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.

Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And clearer still in catholicism - from the catechism of the catholic church:

'By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.

Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".'

You are clearly ignoring the scriptures here.
 "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). The process by which the death which is the wages of sin is transmitted is not  elaborated on but the results of Adam is, here, overturned by Christ.

Paul also addresses this issue in Romans 5. Verses 14-15 "Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many."

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin

[ProfessorDavey]

You are clearly ignoring the scriptures here.
 "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). The process by which the death which is the wages of sin is transmitted is not  elaborated on but the results of Adam is, here, overturned by Christ.

Paul also addresses this issue in Romans 5. Verses 14-15 "Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many."

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin

You are just digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole, as everything you provide further supports what I said previously, namely:

But your bible has, as a central concept, the notion that individual people are sinful and guilty regardless of whether they have done anything wrong themselves. And the reason being that some distant forefather did something wrong and they have somehow 'inherited' that sin and guilt.

... christianity - a religion which is fundamentally based on a notion that all humans are with sin from birth (due to the fall, as described in genesis) and are therefore in need of salvation and redemption that can only be achieved through Jesus.

Sure, of course, no one is arguing that the central concept of christianity is that through Jesus you can be redeemed and saved from the sin established by the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden - that's the whole point. But the key element here is that sin is 'inherited' and that a person is born in sin regardless of whether or not that person has done anything wrong, which, in the case of new born babies, they won't have done. Yet in the eyes of christian doctrine those new born babies are already in sin.

So we aren't really arguing over what christian doctrine considers original sin to be. My point is that the notion of collective inherited guilt - that regardless of whether a person has done anything wrong themselves that they are sinful due to the sins of a many generation ancestor is, in my opinion, morally repugnant. Even more so if this sin (which is nothing to do with anything that individual has done) is punishable. The notion that christianity suggests a 'get out of jail free' option is irrelevant - if you've done nothing wrong why should you be guilty by association and potentially subjected to punishment.

And also as I've mentioned before, once you embed the notion that someone is guilty and punishable not for anything they have done but for wrongdoing of an ancestor it becomes very easy to justify punishing and persecuting individuals and groups of people who haven't done anything wrong toward you but because you perceive that their great, great... grandfather transgressed against your great, great... grandfather. And we know where that attitude leads.

[Outrider]

Saying something doesn't need defending because an Ad Hom here and there will clinch it isn't very good. In fact that's a little bit courtiers reply isn't it.

Not really. It's refuting the logical fallacy that you've somehow made a point in refutation of the arguments by noting that they're made by Professor Dawkins.

So aside from that what are it's merits?

The most obvious one at the moment would seem to be that you don't have a refutation to any of the arguments therein, and are instead resorting to ad hominem attacks.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are just digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole, as everything you provide further supports what I said previously, namely:

That the eastern church thought sin can only be freely committed and therefore the guilt is only on him and her that commits shows that you haven't read everything I provided.

But your bible has, as a central concept, the notion that individual people are sinful and guilty regardless of whether they have done anything wrong themselves.

Firstly that only gained ground with Augustine and never in the Eastern Church

And the reason being that some distant forefather did something wrong and they have somehow 'inherited' that sin and guilt.[/i]

You have omitted consequences of the fall, a feature of theology for the  eastern church. Of course, the first humans set the tone for the rest of us, but to deprive us of a relationship with God or the possibility of such is not, thanks to Christ, is not possible

... christianity - a religion which is fundamentally based on a notion that all humans are with sin from birth (due to the fall, as described in genesis) and are therefore in need of salvation and redemption that can only be achieved through Jesus.

Since salvation is in Christ and Christ is in the father.

Sure, of course, no one is arguing that the central concept of christianity is that through Jesus you can be redeemed and saved from the sin established by the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden - that's the whole point. But the key element here is that sin is 'inherited' and that a person is born in sin regardless of whether or not that person has done anything wrong, which, in the case of new born babies, they won't have done. Yet in the eyes of christian doctrine those new born babies are already in sin.

Again you are ignoring the orthodox church doctrine on this which states They are in sin because they are born into the consequences of the original sin they do not hold guilt for that sin but guilt for there own sin (see Romans 5)

So we aren't really arguing over what christian doctrine considers original sin to be. My point is that the notion of collective inherited guilt - that regardless of whether a person has done anything wrong themselves that they are sinful due to the sins of a many generation ancestor is, in my opinion, morally repugnant.

And so does the Eastern church and myself and the schoolmen of medievel christianity

Even more so if this sin (which is nothing to do with anything that individual has done) is punishable. The notion that christianity suggests a 'get out of jail free' option is irrelevant - if you've done nothing wrong why should you be guilty by association and potentially subjected to punishment.

You shouldn't...... and that goes back to the early eastern church fathers. You need to concentrate on your own sins and your own relation with God since Christ has overturned Adam's work and the way back to God is now open

And also as I've mentioned before, once you embed the notion that someone is guilty and punishable not for anything they have done but for wrongdoing of an ancestor it becomes very easy to justify punishing and persecuting individuals and groups of people who haven't done anything wrong toward you but because you perceive that their great, great... grandfather transgressed against your great, great... grandfather. And we know where that attitude leads.

The last paragraph completely ignores the biblical injunction to turn the other cheek, love your neighbour, forgiveness and that all have fallen short not just Adam or the first humans. All have turned away at one time or another.

[ProfessorDavey]

That the eastern church thought sin can only be freely committed and therefore the guilt is only on him and her that commits shows that you haven't read everything I provided. Firstly that only gained ground with Augustine and never in the Eastern Church

You have omitted consequences of the fall, a feature of theology for the  eastern church. Of course, the first humans set the tone for the rest of us, but to deprive us of a relationship with God or the possibility of such is not, thanks to Christ, is not possible Since salvation is in Christ and Christ is in the father.

Again you are ignoring the orthodox church doctrine on this which states They are in sin because they are born into the consequences of the original sin they do not hold guilt for that sin but guilt for there own sin (see Romans 5) 

And so does the Eastern church and myself and the schoolmen of medievel christianity

You shouldn't...... and that goes back to the early eastern church fathers. You need to concentrate on your own sins and your own relation with God since Christ has overturned Adam's work and the way back to God is now open

You do seem rather obsessed with the Eastern church - why might that be? Perhaps because you know that what I have said aligns with the doctrinal position of virtually all christian denominations. So you focus on the anomaly.

But actually I don't think your implication that the eastern church does not consider original sin to be inherited - this from wiki on the topic:

Eastern Christianity accepts the doctrine of ancestral sin: "Original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin." "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal."

Sounds pretty much like a another description of collected inherited guilt to me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You do seem rather obsessed with the Eastern church - why might that be? Perhaps because you know that what I have said aligns with the doctrinal position of virtually all christian denominations. So you focus on the anomaly.

No, I recognise their existence and you don't. That is not obsession but what it does mean is that some of the later formulations of the Western church do not represent the eastern church, the whole of the early church. That's too big, seminal and basic for an anomaly in any case.

But actually I don't think your implication that the eastern church does not consider original sin to be inherited - this from wiki on the topic:

Eastern Christianity accepts the doctrine of ancestral sin: "Original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin." "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal."

From the wiki on original sin:
''Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt''

 There is nothing which specifically points to this church or indeed any church specifying Darwinian inheritance in fact these things were formulated prior to Darwin here rather than an obvious legacy of our forebears namely the social, spiritual and environmental factors left to us.

Sounds pretty much like a another description of collected inherited guilt to me.

No. orthodoxy, historically, as I have said do not believe in inherited guilt for Adam's sin. You seem to want to ignore this.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, I recognise their existence and you don't. That is not obsession but what it does mean is that some of the later formulations of the Western church do not represent the eastern church, the whole of the early church. That's too big, seminal and basic for an anomaly in any case.

I am well aware of their existence, but not so obsessed with them that I use the words 'eastern/orthodox' six times in a short post.

So I assume you are a member of the eastern orthodox church then Vlad? If not then I presume you to be a member of one of the other churches that you suggest have a different view on inherited sin and would therefore think the eastern orthodox church to be wrong.

But realistically you are in 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' territory here Vlad. My point is that the notion that because of the what Adam & Eve did (well didn't actually as they are mythical characters) we all inherit a negative and punishable trait (call it sin, death, separation from god, guilt, disease or whatever you like) irrespective of anything we have individually done is morally repugnant in my view. And that basic concept exists in the eastern church as well as other denominations.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is nothing which specifically points to this church or indeed any church specifying Darwinian inheritance in fact these things were formulated prior to Darwin here rather than an obvious legacy of our forebears namely the social, spiritual and environmental factors left to us.

From the same page - in fact the first line just before your quote:

'Original sin is the Christian doctrine that humans inherit a tainted nature and a proclivity to sin through the fact of birth'

Yes it is standard christian doctrine (even in the eastern church) that at birth we inherit a tainted nature due to what happened to Adam & Eve regardless of anything we might have done as individuals. To suggest otherwise is trying to argue that black is white. And although there are some differences in its interpretation between varying denominations this basis principle is pretty well universal in christianity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You do seem rather obsessed with the Eastern church - why might that be? Perhaps because you know that what I have said aligns with the doctrinal position of virtually all christian denominations. So you focus on the anomaly.

No, I recognise their existence and you don't. That is not obsession but what it does mean is that some of the later formulations of the Western church do not represent the eastern church, the whole of the early church. That's too big, seminal and basic for an anomaly in any case.

But actually I don't think your implication that the eastern church does not consider original sin to be inherited - this from wiki on the topic:

Eastern Christianity accepts the doctrine of ancestral sin: "Original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin." "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal."

From the wiki on original sin:
''Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt''

 There is nothing which specifically points to this church or indeed any church specifying Darwinian inheritance in fact these things were formulated prior to Darwin here rather than an obvious legacy of our forebears namely the social, spiritual and environmental factors left to us.

Sounds pretty much like a another description of collected inherited guilt to me.

No. orthodoxy, historically, as I have said do not believe in inherited guilt for Adam's sin. You seem to want to ignore this.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You do seem rather obsessed with the Eastern church - why might that be? Perhaps because you know that what I have said aligns with the doctrinal position of virtually all christian denominations. So you focus on the anomaly.

No, I recognise their existence and you don't. That is not obsession but what it does mean is that some of the later formulations of the Western church do not represent the eastern church, the whole of the early church. That's too big, seminal and basic for an anomaly in any case.

But actually I don't think your implication that the eastern church does not consider original sin to be inherited - this from wiki on the topic:

Eastern Christianity accepts the doctrine of ancestral sin: "Original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin." "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal."

From the wiki on original sin:
''Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt''

 There is nothing which specifically points to this church or indeed any church specifying Darwinian inheritance in fact these things were formulated prior to Darwin here rather than an obvious legacy of our forebears namely the social, spiritual and environmental factors left to us.

Sounds pretty much like a another description of collected inherited guilt to me.

No. orthodoxy, historically, as I have said do not believe in inherited guilt for Adam's sin. You seem to want to ignore this.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, I recognise their existence and you don't. That is not obsession but what it does mean is that some of the later formulations of the Western church do not represent the eastern church, the whole of the early church. That's too big, seminal and basic for an anomaly in any case.From the wiki on original sin:
''Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt''

 There is nothing which specifically points to this church or indeed any church specifying Darwinian inheritance in fact these things were formulated prior to Darwin here rather than an obvious legacy of our forebears namely the social, spiritual and environmental factors left to us. No. orthodoxy, historically, as I have said do not believe in inherited guilt for Adam's sin. You seem to want to ignore this.

Why have you posted the same thing twice Vlad.

Can you answer my earlier question please - are you a member of the eastern orthodox church? If not which denomination are you a member of?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

From the same page - in fact the first line just before your quote:

'Original sin is the Christian doctrine that humans inherit a tainted nature and a proclivity to sin through the fact of birth'

Yes it is standard christian doctrine (even in the eastern church) that at birth we inherit a tainted nature due to what happened to Adam & Eve regardless of anything we might have done as individuals. To suggest otherwise is trying to argue that black is white. And although there are some differences in its interpretation between varying denominations this basis principle is pretty well universal in christianity.

Normally the only thing we inherit at birth is environment and heritage. Haven't we inherited genetically on conception?

The trouble is here with the meaning of the word inherited and how that happened. That is why I mentioned a spiritual inheritance could be one meaning. Blow me down if memetics might get us someway to this...but maybe nowhere

[ProfessorDavey]

Normally the only thing we inherit at birth is environment and heritage. Haven't we inherited genetically on conception?

The trouble is here with the meaning of the word inherited and how that happened. That is why I mentioned a spiritual inheritance could be one meaning. Blow me down if memetics might get us someway to this...but maybe nowhere

Can you answer my earlier question please - are you a member of the eastern orthodox church? If not which denomination are you a member of?

And while we are waiting perhaps you'd like to read something from a leading member of the eastern orthodox church Archbishop Sotirios Athanassoulas on the eastern church's view on original sin. I guess you will accept that an eastern orthodox archbishop is probably more qualified to speak on the position of the eastern orthodox church than either you nor I.

http://biserica.org/Publicatii/Catechism/catorsin.htm

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why have you posted the same thing twice Vlad.

Can you answer my earlier question please - are you a member of the eastern orthodox church? If not which denomination are you a member of?

Not a member of the Eastern Orthodox, I was confirmed into the Church of England and simultaneously received into membership of the Methodist church. I merely agree that there is no inherited guilt but do not rule out a spiritual inheritance which Christ has overturned in any case and now we are free to open a relationship with God or reject. Wanting some kind of Godless salvation is also meaningless IMV.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not a member of the Eastern Orthodox, I was confirmed into the Church of England and simultaneously received into membership of the Methodist church.

Both of which doctrinally accept the notion of inherited guilt.

I merely agree that there is no inherited guilt ...

Agree with whom - certainly not Archbishop Sotirios Athanassoulas of the eastern orthodox church who seems pretty clear that one of the elements of original sin is guilt and that it is inherited:

'That is original sin. And its consequences? A.) Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness. B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth. C.) The shattering and distortion of the "image." That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then "the imagination of man's heart is evil "(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil. D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God. E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin.'[/i]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you answer my earlier question please - are you a member of the eastern orthodox church? If not which denomination are you a member of?

And while we are waiting perhaps you'd like to read something from a leading member of the eastern orthodox church Archbishop Sotirios Athanassoulas on the eastern church's view on original sin. I guess you will accept that an eastern orthodox archbishop is probably more qualified to speak on the position of the eastern orthodox church than either you nor I.

http://biserica.org/Publicatii/Catechism/catorsin.htm

An alternative Orthodox view of the belief of St John Chrysostom.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Both of which doctrinally accept the notion of inherited guilt.
Agree with whom - certainly not Archbishop Sotirios Athanassoulas of the eastern orthodox church who seems pretty clear that one of the elements of original sin is guilt and that it is inherited:

'That is original sin. And its consequences? A.) Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness. B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth. C.) The shattering and distortion of the "image." That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then "the imagination of man's heart is evil "(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil. D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God. E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin.'[/i]

But the archbishop sees these as consequences of the fall rather than punishments for the guilt of. These consequences are spiritual. But as I have said these are overturned by Christ. I question here whether the Archbishop is using the word guilt in the sense of of forensic guilt indeed he uses to mean what I would call Goddodging. Again, I am not arguing that we haven't inherited the consequences, just the punishment for or forensic guilt of. How we inherit is a different matter and I don't rule out a spiritual inheritance. I think he certainly sounds a bit Augustinian with his loss of free will.

[ProfessorDavey]

But the archbishop sees these as consequences of the fall rather than punishments for the guilt of.

When in a hole, stop digging. The Archbishop sees guilt as one of the inherited elements of original sin. That is clear.

What he is saying is that there are certain characteristics (negative ones) that we inherit not because of anything we have done but because of what Adam & Eve did (or rather didn't do, as that story is a myth).

And he is also pretty clear that we are all responsible for those inherited sins and have to pay for them - directly following on from my previous quote of his about the heritability of original sin, including the element of guilt:

'We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam. This creates a problem for many people. They ask, Why should we be responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve? Why should we have to pay for the sins of our parents? they say. Unfortunately, this is so, because the consequence of original sin is the distortion of the nature of man.'