Original Sin [Δαφνη Ευτυχια Αρθουρος]

Looking for the silver lining (or rather, the lemonade) in my being awake when I don't want to be, I figured I could at least get a start on responding to the (almost all helpful) comments to yesterday's QotD in which I sought help with the nature of good and evil. Along the way the question of whether Christians consider humans to be basically born evil was asked, and that got me thinking about original sin. I've got an unorthodox (as far as I can tell) take on the concept of original sin, and since I'd conventiently recently typed it up to post on Usenet and was already considering reposting it here, this seems like a good time to do so.

In soc.religion.christian, someone named Gordon asked:

>> > What actually did God mean when he told Adam not to eat of the
>> > forbidden fruit?
>...
>> > This seems to say that Adam should have died, physically, within
>> > 24 hours of having eaten the forbidden fruit. Yet, he lived a
>> > very long time after this. What is the meaning that God intended
>> > for us in this passage?

And someone called Quasin made a response that included:

>> 2.  A&E died in a real spiritual sense the day they are the forbidden 
>> fruit - they ceased being able to enjoy God's presence.

To which a certain JacobusRex replied:

>Being and an Agnostic this question has vexed me greatly. Because if
>taken litteraly it means that the first sin was indeed !!learning!!
>that there is a difference between sin and good. If A&E where created
>without such knowledge (implied)then what we call sinning and following
>Gods will would have appeared the same to them.

And that was the thread in which I wrote the following:

I've got a somewhat unorthodox idea of original sin, but if you'll bear with me, perhaps it will make some sense (and maybe someone better educated can tell me what ancient school of thought I've re-invented). And yes, oddly enough, one could phrase my understanding of the story as the sin having been learning, but bear with me and I shall attempt to make that notion seem less absurd.

In the KJV, the tree in question is labelled "the tree of knowledge of good and evil". Not merely "the tree of knowledge", and not merely "that tree y'all ain't supposed to eat from". The Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil. Assuming that this translation is correct (a dangerous assumption with the KJV, I know, and perhaps someone fluent in Hebrew will turn my entire essay on its head ... but for now I'll go on), I figured this phrasing was important.

I'd always had trouble with the way original sin had been taught to me -- that we were all guilty for the actions of our ancestors despite not having been born yet to try to talk them out of it -- so I asked myself what about the knowledge of good and evil specifically could taint successive generations. And here, I think, is the answer:

Knowledge of good and evil obligates the bearer of that knowledge to act in accordance with it.

When Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of -- became imbued with -- the knowledge of good and evil, humankind became a moral species.

Can a mouse sin? Does a mouse know "good" and "evil"? Can a cat? A cat can know when it has broken a rule, or when it has caused a human to become angry, but does it know good and evil? Can a cat sin? And even if a cat can do so, can a fish?

Humans know good and evil. We know right and wrong. In fact, it's one of the tests most of us (consciously or unconsciously) use to determine humanity! What do we call a homo sapiens who has no notion of right and wrong? Either a monster (not truly human at all) if otherwise intelligent, or a perpetual child if not intelligent.

Humanity as a race is moral -- not in the sense of being Fine Upstanding Citizens Who Scorn Pornography And Tithe Regularly, but in the sense of having morals, of having the very concept of right and wrong, good and evil, inside us, even if we slip and stumble and don't always measure up to what we know we should do. Oh, some training is needed in childhood to reinforce and fine-tune this sense, and some of us disagree with others regarding the details of the moral code (especially when mores are more involved than morals), but the ability to say, "Hey, that's wrong," is in us. The ability to say, "Uh, I really shouldn't have done that."

Which means that humans can sin. The concept of sin applies to us.

Someone who lacks that sense that what he or she is about to do is wrong is a monster or a baby. For the rest of us, hearing that voice and ignoring it makes us sinners. We know better, and are therefore accountable; that's what makes it sin, not merely "making a bad choice". Eating the fruit per se was not the original sin; it was the origin of sin in humans. Before that, Adam and Eve were innocent -- not in the sense of never having done something, but in the sense of not knowing of sin and being incapable of sin. Eating that fruit was the death of their innocence, and the end of their days in that carefree world of lack-of-accountability. From then on, they had to suffer not only the tangible consequences of their actions, but the knowlege and understanding ... guilt and regret ... of their actions whenever they did evil.

And we have inherited that; we don't get a free ride with regard to sin, because we have that knowledge of it. We are not mice, nor fish, but humans. And for humans, sin matters. Sin applies. We're held to that higher standard because of this knowledge.

If you're a creationist taking the story of the Garden of Eden literally, we can stop right there. If you're an evolutionist Christian taking the story of the Garden as essential but not literal truth, then the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil represents the point in the development of our species at which we became moral creatures. For that matter, if you're an agnostic (as is the person who wrote the message this is a followup to), or even if you're an atheist looking for a good metaphor, that last bit applies. Either way, we're stuck with it now. We can try to ignore our sense of right and wrong, we can try to rationalize our actions in spite of that sense (we're really good at that), or we can take responsibility for both attempting to act in accordance with our moral sense (and to educate that sense) and guilt for the times we fail, but we cannot escape our knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil, not-sin and sin.

So, to recap:

> Being and an Agnostic this question has vexed me greatly.
> Because if taken litteraly it means that the first sin was
> indeed !!learning!!

Yes, but not that learning in general is a sin, only that knowledge of good and evil obligates us to act in accordance with that knowledge; not that learning is a sin, but that when they tasted the fruit they learned of sin, and from that day forward bore responsibility for their sins. Beause at that point, they knew better.

I hope this helps.

I'm reposting it in case folks here find it interesting, and as "where I'm coming from" background which may or may not help make sense of some of my comments in the good-and-evil discussion. But this is not "I shall argue this position as dogma as though my very soul depended upon it" stuff; it's an interpretation that makes sense to me but which is based on what I know is an unreliable translation of the Bible ... and which may have some holes I haven't noticed yet. I may or may not listen to criticism of it, but I'm not going to pick fights over it (and if you point out a hole that utterly deflates it, well I'll be annoyed, but better to have it pointed out than not).

But pointing out that I'm using rather a Christian concept of "sin" doesn't count; I wrote it assuming that the primary audience (the newsgroup) would be expect that as default background in that forum, and we can wrestle with the whole [Nature of Sin / Existance of Sin / Usefulness of the Concept of Sin] in a comparitive-religions context (which ought to be fun and educational) some other time.

January

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1 1	2 1	3 1	4 1	5 1	6 1	7 1
8 1	9 1	10 1	11 1	12 1	13 1	14 1
15 1	16 1	17 1	18 1	19 1	20 1	21 1
22 1	23 1	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

I actually liked your concept of original sin. Coming from a Jewish background, with a grounding in various other religions over the years, I would have to say that, while you might consider it unorthodox, I consider it to be spot on. The difference between us and other species is exactly that -- our accountability. we are accountable for our actions, maybe or maybe not to a "higher power" but to our own selves. We can rationalize all we want, but there is some little part -- some little voice in the back of our head -- that knows better, and will call us to account.

Further, only a child or a monster, as you noted, is unaware that his or her actions have consequences. It is the one thing people try to get across to their kids, no matter what else the "window dressing" that their particular set of beliefs requires of them. (Well, okay, there are others, but some form of what Jews and Christians call "The Ten Commandments," and others may just note as guides for right living -- or living in harmony -- exists in pretty much any religion you might want to examine.)

Anyway, thanks for providing some food for thought on this rainy morning.

[link] [reply]

That actually makes the most sense out of any arguement I've ever heard on the matter.

i might be misremembering, that's exactly what i always thought happened in the garden of eden, and i'm pretty sure it's what i learned in hebrew school as well. actually, i'm kind of curious what people who DON'T think that's what the sin was think the sin was (gosh that's an awful sentence).

i might ask more jews about this, since

otherdeb and i seem to think "well, duh" when we hear this hypothesis :)

Your concept feels *very* orthodox to me, actually. Not as in "everyone knows that story", but in the "your explanation is very in line with the teachings I've been taught".

I've long since been taught that if, for some reason, you can't understand what sin is, you are not capable of sinning. This applies to childhood, mentally handicapped, the "morally uneducated" and to the insane. Further, the *RC* teaches that if your concience tells you something that is in conflict with their teachings, you're really really sure (no doubts now! through prayer, mediation, makeing a true effort to believe the RC is right) then your concience wins, and ::whatever:: is not a sin. (I include morally uneducated because I think its possible that the parents/community/etc may have failed to teach the person the specifics - you know, they might not think its okay to hurt people, but haven't gotten to the point of understanding the sublter "stealing hurts people". It is not intended to include those to whom "hurting people" just doesn't matter - the monsters, as you put it.)

However, I've just had an addendum opinon in my head... comes back to "what is sin?" In the end, the C religions teach that Sin is *not doing what God wants you to do* (before, it was supposed to have been a direct line - God said "anything goes except what I tell you not to do; now the "direct line" is the concience, reinforced by the churches. I always figured that was necessary because conciences weren't part of the "original design", and so had to be trained. ::grin::) So in many ways, I think it both qualifies as the "origin of sin" and as "the first sin"; from an evolutionists point of view, it was probably the first time it occurred to "them" that they could do something, had a sneaking suspicion it wasn't okay, and did it anyway, then had to learn from the repurcussions.

I'm not sure I agree about the "morally uneducated" being incapable of sin (as in original-sin type sin, not "separation from God"), primarily because I've known folks who willfully refuse to think about their actions or moral quandaries.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Ah, but if they're *willfully* refusing, then they've moved past "morally uneducated" (or at least, as I meant it.) Personally, I've never met anyone *I* think qualifies as morally uneducated who was older than 8 years old, because society itself starts to teach you. In order to willfully refuse to consider the morals of their situation, someone would have had to suggest to them that their moral education was deficient, whereupon they're not "pristine" enough to qualify as free from "original sin". Clear as mud? ::grin::

Does this mean, then, that if you fail to morally educate your children, that then they are incapable of sin? Is it a sin, then, to give your children a moral education, thus basically feeding them the apple of knowledge and making them capable of sin?
But if you don't do that, then they're incapable of living harmoniously in human society.
Which is why I (from my Pagan perspective, admittedly) regard the acquisition of moral knowledge as a _positive_ event - humanity growing up, becoming fully human, closer to God, not farther away. (Can God sin? Or does God simply choose not to? If God can't sin, is God omnipotent?) We took the burden of self-knowledge and moral understanding upon ourselves, likely without a full understanding of the implications of that choice, but with that act we also took on a great gift as well. When you can choose to be evil, choosing good means infinitely more. The best people are not the people with no evil tendencies in their souls - they're the people who understand and overcome their own propensity towards evil, and who nurture and encourage their own propensity towards good.
To paraphrase Lois McMaster Bujold's latest, God/dess/es appear to hunger for glorious souls, not perfect ones.

I've always found the conept of original sin to be a complete joke.
A hoax. A lie perpetuated to make us believe that somehow we thru the actions of ancestors that we cannot take back ourselves, are now hopelessly separated from God's grace- that is unless we take the "miracle cure".

Yes, things for us changed as we came to understand our actions in terms of the "Big Picture". But that change didn't happen just that one time, it's a PROCESS. We grew into our "Knowledge of Good & Evil" then, just as we continue to grow in our understanding now. Just as a child grows. Kids don't wake up one morning and know right from wrong, and even seminal epiphanies can take a while to bear their fruit.

And what's more, I believe that this is how WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE.

God is pretty big, and kind of clever. I don't see how He/She could have made us to be sentient and soulful and then set up a game where our own curiosity would damn us and our kin thru one silly temptation.

I just don't think that God is that foolish or that mean. Among other things it runs counter to my experience of "A sea that refuses no river."

I don't think this Biblical Parable is wrong, per se, just that we're getting the wrong lesson from it and have rewritten the ending retroactively. Yes, as we become more aware of what we are and what we do, things will change.

But God is always there, and we will never ever be separated from that Grace and Love except by our own blindness or willingness to believe things which really don't make much sense.

It's all right there in the punchline:
"Who told you that you were naked?"

The Joke's on us and we don't get it. That's our burden, not sin.
Sins can be forgiven.

(NB: I'm not a Christian, but I am a medievalist. :)

God is pretty big, and kind of clever. I don't see how He/She could have made us to be sentient and soulful and then set up a game where our own curiosity would damn us and our kin thru one silly temptation.

I just don't think that God is that foolish or that mean. Among other things it runs counter to my experience of "A sea that refuses no river."

Well, there's the gnostic doctrine of the Fortunate Fall, which goes: the Eve eating the apple was a happy thing because it ultimately resulted in God sending Jesus: no apple, no cross. "Ave fit ex Eva" and all that.

Just figured I should throw that out.
‘

Ne hadde the apple take ben
The apple taken ben
Ne hadde never our lady
A ben hevene queen
Blissed be the time
That apple take was
Therefore we moun singen
"Deo gracias!"

"Fortunate Fall" Still buys into the Doctrine of Original Sin, tho, which is (in my opinion) just so much Rubbish.

It's fine that Jesus came with a good message, but to make buying into that message a precondition of being put back into Grace? Rubbish!!!

So it's a *good* thing that God stacked the deck in favor of mortals' *inevitable* damnation just so His Children could celebrate their Saviour? Rubbish!

What(non-dysfunctional)parent would DO THAT kind of crap to their beloved child?

I still say that if we feel separated from God's grace, it's because WE are making ourselves blind to it. It's there. How can it not be?

I still say that those who propogated the notion of "Original Sin" were hucksters and charlatans who were greedy for wealth and power. They thought to get it by exploiting people who-longing to be in touch with the Divine, had trouble getting past the challenge of doing so on a Material plane.

All of those beautiful words about Love and Forgiveness twisted into one big
lie to enable a power grab. So sad that it still works.

"Original Sin" is the snake oil of organised Christianity and human marks are still lining up to buy it.

What you have written, about the knowledge of good and evil is exactly what I was taught in Sunday and Hebrew school as well.

Hey, I'm beginning to suspect that you may be a born-again Jew! (Sorry. Call it as I see it. :)

Anyway, it is the knowledge, the ability to know what is good and to make a choice whether or not to act upon it is what always made sense to be. Thus, the Catholic concept of infants being born "in sin" (from the fact that they were conceived through sex.....how else was it supposed to happen?) repulsed me. It is clear that infants make no conscious choices, therefore cannot be sinners. To tell parents who have lost an infant that its soul went to hell because it died unbaptized and "in sin" is one of those Church behaviors that seem criminal in their lack of compassion to me. Just my $.02

Hey, wasn't going to Catholic school fun?

from the fact that they were conceived through sex.....how else was it supposed to happen?

According to Christians... through parthenogensis. Haven't you read the Bible :)

No wonder so many of them are opposed to reproductive technologies. "But everyone will want one!"

Hmmm. Is a child conceived through in vitro fertilization born in sin? Has someone written the obvious SF story? (Does Ethan of Athos put this doctrine forth? I forget.)

No, it doesn't.

from the fact that they were conceived through sex.....how else was it supposed to happen?

According to Christians... through parthenogensis. Haven't you read the Bible :)

*snerk!!*

No wonder so many of them are opposed to reproductive technologies. "But everyone will want one!"

see above comment :) Sadly, that actually makes some sense, given their absurd parameters.......

Hmmm. Is a child conceived through in vitro fertilization born in sin? Has someone written the obvious SF story?

My guess on this is that the pleasure the man felt from the ejaculation into the cup made it a sin. 'sigh' Perhaps if the sperm is removed while the donor is unconscious. Or when he's been declared legally dead. Would that be a sin? Coming after death....hmmmm........

I dashed off across the Net and found an online copy of the Torah - The English version definitely said "the tree of knowledge of good and evil". Unfortunately, my Student's Torah, which has one page Hebrew and the facing page in English, is packed in a box for the next six months.

This is how JPS translates it. The phrase in Hebrew is "eitz ha-da'at tov v'rah", which seems pretty unambiguous to me. (I am but a beginner in Hebrew, but I know all those words and enough grammar for a phrase that simple.)

It's the same in the Swedish translation, released in 1999, a huge collective effort by scholars in Hebrew and Greek and people who could write in style.

Very interesting perspective. Thank you for reposting it. :)

hmm. This is interesting and similar to thoughts I've had. I guess I'd go one step further. Throughout Genesis 1, God creates the world and declares everything "Good." Then, once Adam & Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and EVIL. Then, immediately they know things like shame, etc, and start labeling certain things, even parts of themselves which God had already declared "good" to be "evil."
It seems you think the concept of good & evil is the basis of morality and, thus, a good concept.
I think that the mere desire to label things good and evil is an attempt to usurp God. Jesus says over and over "Judge not one another" because only God alone can judge good and evil. Yet, that's exactly what Adam and Eve wanted to do - to take over God's job of judging between good and evil. And it is the same thing we still inherit from the religions of the Bible.
God declared all of creation good, so it seems declaring anything evil or taking that right from God is the sin.
You are right in that animals don't make such judgments, so they also don't have things like warfare and bigotry, so far as we know.
If you think about it, there is nothing in nature that is evil. Anything "evil" is an invention of humankind, because our original sin was to invent the concept of "evil," which didn't exist before then. It was only after there was such an idea of "evil" that evil could be committed.

Sorry this is poorly written. I'm in a hurry. I hope some of it is clear.

Well, from my reading of Genesis, I see the following:

Adam and Eve are charged with something they should not do.
Eve, in discussion with the serpent, says it is wrong (demonstrating prior ability to differentiate)
They eat of the fobidden tree, and are then put out to keep them from eating of the tree of life, and becoming like "us" - Gods!

So, the tree cannot have provided them morality, as they already demonstrated that. The tree must have provided some sort of definate knowledge, as the ancients were very good at naming things for what they were about. What Knowledge did Adam and Eve have after eating the tree?

"Their eyes were opened".
They saw they were naked, were ashamed, and made clothes. This implies that prior to this time, they did not make the connection mentally between nakedness and sex (since that is the only reason for shame in nakedness).
They hid from God. This implies that prior to that time, they welcomed God, because they had no sin (one can bring in Jesus' statement that he and his Father are one, because he always does things that please Him). So one can see that now, they were conceiving of things that were sinful.

Imagine a child, never exposed to violence of any type (extremely unlikely). Imagine this child is spanked for the first time. Power has been exerted over the child with violence. This child now will understand the concept of using force to get what one wants. Thier eyes have been opened to the concept.

And that was all original sin was. It was a personal sin of Adam and Eve. It did not automatically taint every single human, but each human in turn has been introduced to sinful ideas, and had to turn away or accept them on thier own. No one today is being punished for Adam's sin, except by the unfortunate situations that are extant because people choose to do harmful things.

Δαφνη Ευτυχια Αρθουρος

Original Sin

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

LOL

Re: LOL

Re: LOL

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

Just 'cause I was curious...

Re: Just 'cause I was curious...

Re: Just 'cause I was curious...

(no subject)

(no subject)

I beg to differ

Links

January