I was looking up some stuff and noticed that multiple sources claim that the Catholics and Orthodox have a different view on the "first sin" or "original sin". - There is this answered question within the exchange. Which is what I've found through research as well. - As the Catechism says, “original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’—a state and not an act” (CCC 404). - The Council of Carthage (418) is considered Ecumenical by the Orthodox Church, and it contained the doctrine of "Original Sin"... so no issue here. - Instead of original sin, which is used in Western Christianity, the Orthodox Church uses the term ancestral sin to describe the effect of Adam’s sin on mankind. We do this to make one key distinction; we didn’t sin in Adam (as the Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12 implies). Rather we sin because Adam’s sin made us capable of doing so. The Greek word for sin, amartema, refers to an individual act, indicating that Adam and Eve alone assume full responsibility for the sin in the Garden of Eden. The Orthodox Church never speaks of Adam and Eve passing guilt on to their descendants, as did Augustine. Instead, each person bears the guilt of his or her own sins. (Saint John the evangelist orthodox church ) - The OCA website claims the "West" understand the doctrine of Original guilt. It is possible they meant the protestants and not the Catholics, but in my experience the Western Church is usually the catholics. - There is the OrthoCuban website who provides a summary, but perhaps it is just the authors flawed understanding of the words used? ------------- As the two churches appear to be still maintaining that there is a difference between Original Sin and Ancestral/First Sin... what exactly is the difference? Because as far as I can tell, there seems to be no difference. Both the catholics and orthodox churches say we suffer the consequences of the first sin, not the guilt. I think the difference is that the Catholic Church defines sin as a violation, and for the Orthodox sin is the separation from God. Is that the issue?

In his book *In the Beginning*, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote the following with regards to the pre-Pauline hymn of Phil 2:5-11: > We cannot consider this extraordinarily rich and profound text [Phil > 2:5-11] in detail. We want to limit ourselves here to its connection > with the story of the Fall, even though **it seems to have a somewhat > different version in mind** than the one that is related in Genesis 3 > (cf., e.g., Job 15:7-8). What is the account of the Fall presumed by Phil 2:5-11? And what is the account of the Fall related in Job 15:7-8? More over, are there other places where the Bible gives an account of original sin (either explicitly or implicitly)? If this question is too involved, I would be satisfied by any book/article recommendations.

Although the Eastern Orthodox Church does not maintain inherited guilt, as does the Roman Catholic Church, it does maintain that mankind bears the consequences of Adam’s sin, and that those consequences involve physical corruption and death. But does the Orthodox Church also maintain that man’s tendency to sin is worse post‐Fall than pre‐Fall, being inherited from Adam? Does the Eastern Orthodox Church believe that humans inherited an inward tendency to sin (sin nature) from Adam that Adam himself acquired only after the Fall? Or would the Eastern Orthodox Church believe that man’s inherent tendency to sin is roughly the same as that of Adam and Eve’s?

Galatians 5:17 says, *"For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh."* This seems to suggest a deliberate opposition between the two. My question is: Was this opposition between the Spirit and the flesh part of God's original design from the beginning (before the Fall), or did it come about as a result of sin? In other words, did God will for this tension to exist under His authority, or is it a result of rebellion against that authority? I’m looking for answers from perspectives that explain how this dynamic fits into Christian theology — particularly with reference to Scripture and doctrinal traditions.

In Genesis, Adam and Eve's disobedience resulted in death entering the world. Does Christian doctrine interpret human aging and physical decline as part of the curse resulting from the fall? Or was aging part of the natural human design even before sin? How have theologians historically interpreted this?

Pohle, *God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural* pt. 2, ch. 2, §3, art. 4, 1. claims: >It is a controverted question among theologians whether \[1\] original sin derives solely from Adam or \[2\] from both Adam and Eve as its efficient cause Which theologians held position #1, and which held position #2? Position #1 would seem to imply that Eve never had Original Sin, though she certainly committed an actual sin (of pride) by transgressing God's command. Position #2 would have to explain how Eve inherited or shared in Adam's sin. I'm not asking whether Adam or Eve is more culpable , but whether Adam alone or Adam with Eve is the cause of their children inheriting Original Sin.

St. Paul writes in 1 Cor. 12:23 : >And such as we think to be the less honourable (*ignobiliora*) members (ατιμότερα) of the body, about these we put more abundant honour: and those that are our uncomely (*inhonesta*) parts (ασχήμονα) have more abundant comeliness (*honestam*, ευσχημοσύνην). Upon which St. Thomas Aquinas commentates (as reported by Reginaldi de Piperno ): >Some members are called base in holy things, not on account of any baseness of sin, but on account of the disobedience of the genital parts, as a result of original sin. Or because they are directed to a base use, as the members which serve the emission of superfluities. To these a greater modesty is applied, when they are more carefully covered, which the members designed for nobler uses do not require. Hence he adds: Our more presentable parts do not require this, namely, external covering; hence no veil is used to cover the face. Are the genitals honorable or uncomely parts of the human body, according to Church fathers or doctors? It would seem they are one of the most honorable, because they help create new human life, and life is sacred. Genitalia would seem the most ignoble, because, as St. Thomas, they are difficultly subjected to man's will, due to Original Sin.

Did St. Augustine think sexual pleasure and concupiscence are identical? If not, why do some people seem to think this? Concupiscence is simply a disorder in which the body rebels against the rational soul; this is something completely different from pleasure.

Original Sin is the Catholic doctrine that all human are born sinners due to the inheritance of the sin of Adam. However, Jesus Christ atoned for the sin of mankind. Therefore, one would assume the sin of Adam which Man inherited would be included, and thus children would not need to be baptised in order to be saved as they would be innocent. Why do Catholics believe original sin was not washed away along with other sins?

God is known as very just and he likes to have mercy on people. God doesn't want people to inherit sins of their parents. So why did we inherit this very sin? What is so special about the sin of Adam and Eve? I feel like that it's against justice because we didn't make it. It's also against having mercy because we inherited a sin which leads to death.

I was recently discussing theology and baptism with my Arminian teacher when he mentioned that he doesn't believe in the doctrine of original sin, saying "I don't believe sin is genetic". This actually caught me off guard, as I was unaware that there even was a dispute over the doctrine of original sin. Yet later in the day and in the next following days, I spent a little bit of time looking for the basis of such a doctrine. I wasn't really able to find anything online. So that leads me to my question. What is the biblical basis for the doctrine of original sin? It may be helpful to me if you defined what is meant by original sin, as I may just be confused.

According to Catholic doctors or Fathers of the Church, if Adam hadn't sinned, would we wear clothes? Or are clothes a consequence of Original Sin? St. Thomas Aquinas asks such speculative questions regarding the condition of Adam's offspring had he not sinned (*Summa Theologiæ* I q. 99 , q. 100 , q. 101 ); cf. "If there were no Original Sin, would everyone have been married? ".

Are certain actions considered sins more due to societal norms than actual biblical principles? For instance, imagine it's the 1400s, and a newly discovered psychedelic plant is found. Since it’s just been discovered, I try it and experience hallucinations and a sense of emotional warmth (essentially getting "high"). At the time, no one knows the long-term effects, but by the late 1600s, it’s classified as a drug. Would I now be considered a sinner because, according to 1600s societal standards, the plant is a drug, and drug users are deemed sinful? This would imply that what I had been doing was sinful, even though years earlier it wasn’t viewed as such simply because its effects were unknown. One might argue that if the plant distracts me from God, it’s sinful. But what if, instead, getting high from this plant allowed me to read and visualize scripture with deeper emotional connection and understanding? How would this align with the idea of sin, especially when societal perceptions shift over time?

Benedict Ashley, O.P., *Spiritual Direction in the Dominican Tradition* p. 50 claims: >Naturally speaking, the human species is divided equally into male and female, so that every human can find a partner and form a marriage, and if there had been no fall into sin, naturally all persons would have married. Is this true? Would've everyone married if there were no Original Sin? It seems not, as isn't celibacy equally natural as being married? What did Catholic fathers or doctors of the Church have to say about this?

One big difference between the Eastern and Western churches is the idea of original sin, Instead of "original sin" the Orthodox Church holds to "ancestral sin" which has been described to me as centering around the idea that nothing God makes is inherently evil. The *OrthodoxWiki* article Original sin says that > "In the Orthodox Church the term ancestral sin (Gr. προπατορικό αμάρτημα) is preferred and is used to define the doctrine of man's 'inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors' and that this is removed through baptism." The first line of the *Wikipedia* page on Pelagianism states > "Pelagianism is a Christian theological position that holds that the fall did not taint human nature and that humans by divine grace have free will to achieve human perfection." If we are all created good simply with the ability to sin or even a proclivity to sin but are not corrupted by sin then wouldn't it be possible for someone of their own will to not sin? Is that not simply Pelagianism?

The "quieting of concupiscence" (*remedium concupiscentiae*) is one of the secondary ends of the sacrament of matrimony (cf. *Casti Connubii* §59), but what exactly is it? How does it "quiet" or "remedy" concupiscence?

The word for 'weakness' (astheneo) of the flesh (Rom.8:3), or the 'infirmity' (astheneo) of the flesh (Rom.6:19) seems to indicate that the inclination to sin is in our fallen flesh nature and not from the concept of 'original sin' A few examples: "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is 'weak' (astheneo)" (Matt.26:41). "For what the law could not do in that it was 'weak' (astheneo) through the flesh, God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh." (Rom.8:3). "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our 'weaknesses' (astheneo), but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning."(Heb.4:15)

Genesis 4:3-4; Leviticus 3:2; Leviticus 16:5; Ezekiel 44:1;Numbers 6:10-11; and Exodus 29:10-14 are some of the many places in the Bible that speak of God requiring animal sacrifices or sacrifices being made to God for expiation of sins or for thanks. If God's plan all along was that Jesus would come as a perfect sacrifice to atone for the sins of all of humanity; why were animal sacrifices required of the people of those "Old Testament" times, but not of our time; yet Jesus was destined to die for the sins of both ("groups")? My question is not restricted to the purpose of animal sacrifice as asked in this post: (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/842/what-was-the-purpose-to-animal-sacrifices) ; but I ask why we no longer have to offer them when they were required of earlier generations despite the fact Jesus would die for their sins as well as our sins.

I have have read the posts related to this question, but they do not tackle this issue from the same angle. For the related questions i have seen, the focus was only on why we inherit Adam's sins. **I flip and ask why we don't inherit Adam's good deeds**? For those that may say we inherited his "sinful nature" or capacity to do evil but not the original sin itself, that doesn't tally well with the Protestant concept that flows from "we (including children), have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". **Personally, I believe children come from God pure and without sin.** **I believe Adam's sins were his own sins (the "original" and any other sins), and I should not be asked about them; because Adam was a human being with his own issues, and I have mine**. To argue otherwise is to contradict Ezekiel 18:19-21 **"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son**. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.."

If Original Sin is Adam's sin, did Eve have Original Sin? If so, then how did she "catch" it from Adam? Or is her (and women's) punishment in Gen. 3:16 only due to her actual sin of pride, and not to her having Original Sin? cf. "Did Original Sin derive solely from Adam or from both Adam and Eve? "