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.
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::
LOL
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.
Re: LOL
Re: LOL