Δαφνη Ευτυχια Αρθουρος

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.