[Ed.] Original Sin?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ooh, I hope David Swidler comes by. The idea of Adam and Eve introducing the idea of defining what is good and what is evil doesn't work for a Christian interpretation, but it is a great Jewish intepretation. Think about it -- in that light it's a story about moral relativism. We can define this god's laws as right or that god's laws as right rather than simply following God, which was supposed to be the way. One of the great transgressions of the Israelites was the desire for a king rather than having God as their king and, of course, prostituting themselves to other gods. This must be in someone's commentaries somewhere.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Agreed,

Now, there is a reason why I am harping on this moral discernment theme.

Through Janice questions, that started the whole thread, there was certain elements that suggested that moral discernment is against God's plan. For instance: "We do everything in our power to teach our children right from wrong, we carefully watch our children in their youth to make sure they do not harm themselves or harm others all in the hope they eventually take on responsibility in their actions.
So, why was the sin such a sin?"

Prior to their fall, moral discernment was not necessary, since there was no evil to defend against and everything was orderly. That being said, moral discernment was within their reach from the very fact they where intelligent. It was never wrong to be able of moral discernment, it was just wholly unnecessary.

The problem was for men to introduce their own moral judgment of what is right and wrong, thus breaking the balance. Thus is the true transgression of eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

I don't think that works as a Christian interpretation. The transgression introduced sin into the world as a metaphysical property. According to Paul everyone is awash in sin. If the issue were merely that we could define good and evil then we would have the ability to get it right and follow some law that would cleanse us. But it is precisely this which Paul denies. There is no law that anyone can follow because we are awash in sin.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.....
Do you suggest that God told Adam and Eve to not eat the Forbidden Fruit but they did not understand being so blissfully ignorant ?

Apparently Eve did not understand, or did not believe God was telling the truth when he told her she would die..

Either way, she apparently did not accept the authority of god.. Which again, would not be wrong in the absence of a knowledge of the difference between good and evil ..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Good points Ichneumonwasp.

Once we know what sin is, we should have the power to avoid it if we truly have free will. Sort of makes redemption unnecessary if not meaningless.

 

[OSS 117]

I don't think that works as a Christian interpretation. The transgression introduced sin into the world as a metaphysical property. According to Paul everyone is awash in sin. If the issue were merely that we could define good and evil then we would have the ability to get it right and follow some law that would cleanse us. But it is precisely this which Paul denies. There is no law that anyone can follow because we are awash in sin.

I have looked to attack this thread with a strictly logical approach since it is the measuring stick here. This is where it lead me so far. I have not been concerned so much with theological arguments.

I will let this thread breath a little now.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I have looked to attack this thread with a strictly logical approach since it is the measuring stick here. This is where it lead me so far. I have not been concerned so much with theological arguments.

I will let this thread breath a little now.

There is no way to separate the two. The thread is titled "Original Sin" and as such is concerned with Christian theology. If logic drives us toward an interpretation of the Adam and Eve story that does not fit with Christian theology, then what becomes of Christian theology?

The story is Jewish. I think it works great as a Jewish story. But the Jewish story does not concern orignal sin.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You know Occam's Razor might suggest the simplest explanation here is the story has to do with what the humans who began the tale intended, not what some imaginary god intended. So all this philosophizing about free will and pre and post sin wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with the story. That stuff may just be distortions which occurred over the years of telling and retelling.

The intent of the story was most likely one of control and an explanation for pain and suffering. And if you look at the themes of religion throughout the world and throughout history several are fairly common across cultures.

Hope for life after death and for not really losing those who die.
Attempts to control disasters either personal or widespread.
An explanation for why natural things happen.
Control by leaders exploiting religious beliefs for personal gain.
The benefit of a sense of belonging to a group.

(I think those are the main ones, maybe someone can think of a few others.)

So taking those themes of religious stories into consideration, the more mundane, "do as I say, believe as I believe or you'll be sorry" and "God is punishing you, that's why the crops failed" would seem to fit the 'moral of the story' without all the philosophizing about free will. It makes more sense to me that part was added the first time someone said, "Well why did God put the tree there in the first place?"

 

[jimmygun]

I wish I could think of an original sin to commit. Sadly, its all been done.

 

[OSS 117]

There is no way to separate the two. The thread is titled "Original Sin" and as such is concerned with Christian theology. If logic drives us toward an interpretation of the Adam and Eve story that does not fit with Christian theology, then what becomes of Christian theology?

The story is Jewish. I think it works great as a Jewish story. But the Jewish story does not concern orignal sin.

Agreed and conceded.

 

[Robin]

In Dragons of Eden, Carl Sagan very plausibly interprets the Adam and Eve story as a metaphor for the evolution of the human brain - the pain in childbirth linked to the larger head of a human being, tilling the soil being an activity that only an animal with our level of intelligence can undertake, and the emnity with reptiles as a metaphor for the portion of our brain that we still have in common with reptiles.

It shows how you can read just about anything into any story if you accept it as allegory.

Pleasant little coming of age stories, however, are not a plausible interpretation when you take the doctrine of original sin in context with the whole of Christianity, as a moral basis for the doctrine of Hell, as the most important feature of the Redemption, which is surely the central doctrine for any Christian.

The main features of the story in this context are that disobedience to God was the only sin in Adam and Eve's world and in breaking that rule they condemned the entire human race - thus you are condemned to an eternity of torment because of something done by remote ancestors.

I cannot think of even an allegorical interpretation that would make any sense of that.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I think the only thing you can learn from the Adam and Eve story is that you should not listen to talking snakes. Of course Adam and Eve did not know this because they had never been lied to before and because God was foolishly and allowed the whole episode to happen. A little bit more information for Adam and Eve and we would all be living in Eden still.

 

[blobru]

Hi Janis.
I doubt I'll have much to say that hasn't been already in prior discussion, but wanted to have a go just the same:

First question:
If Adam and Eve were completely innocent when committing the sin of disobedience, how could God punish them as if they should have known better? What did God really expect of two beings that could not yet conceive of evil actions?

Adam and Eve seem to me to be as innocent as animals prior to eating the apples, so they couldn't sin. Only once they eat from the Tree of Knowledge, then they know they've sinned. Their sin doesn't seem to them to be disobedience actually, but nakedness; that's what they're ashamed of once they know right from wrong. It doesn't say they felt guilty about disobeying God. However, God accuses them of disobedience once He sees they know they're naked and are ashamed. God says He's punishing them for disobedience which I agree doesn't make much sense. The only logical way out for an apologist I can see is to say God is really punishing them for the consequences of this original act of disobedience: the acquisition of the knowledge of Good and Evil. So 'ethical knowledge' is original sin. (I think that's sort of what OSS 117 has been saying too.)

Second question:
Even given that Adam and Eve had actually committed a sin they could be found guilty of, what Justifies God's further decision of continuing the curse though every generation until the end of time?

Because, according to this interpretation, all A&E's descendants "inherit" the knowledge of G&E: apparently once acquired, the trait is passed on; very Lamarckian.

Third question:
Regarding being "reborn". After several thousand years of people living and dying (including a genocidal flood) God then decides to forgive the ancestors of Adam and Eve by the Sacrifice of the Third aspect of God "The Son". This allows people to embrace the forgiveness of God, however it does not reverse the curses that were placed on Adam and Eve such as Man having to 'till the soil' or women having to suffer childbirth or menstruation. Further, why do these curses not cease after one is "reborn"?

The apologist would probably argue there is no tillage, childbirth, or menses in the afterlife, which is what those "reborn" in Christ gain.
He might also argue that that's why God had to kick A&E out of Eden; had they also eaten of the Tree of Life and become immortal, God wouldn't have had any leverage to make them behave ("don't sin or you won't live forever!")

Fourth question:
The sin seems (to me) to be a sin of disobedience, the Sin of not listening to God. The result was that Adam and Eve knew of Good and Evil. The essence of my question is why is this such a bad thing? We do everything in our power to teach our children right from wrong, we carefully watch our children in their youth to make sure they do not harm themselves or harm others all in the hope they eventually take on responsibility in their actions.
So, why was the sin such a sin?

Again, on this interpretation original sin is knowledge of G&E. Once they know the difference, they might choose evil. God knows A&E are disobedient, so just telling them not to choose evil isn't enough; he needs a way to threaten them. Since the death penalty is the ultimate threat, God reserves the right to impose it for evil behavior by expelling A&E from Eden before they can eat of the Tree of Life (BTW, what was the fruit of the Tree of Life? Does it say anywhere? I've always imagined plums, but that's just a guess.)

Final question:
In the age of Moses God makes ten commandments that man is to follow. I find it odd that God did not make the ten commandments in the age of Adam and Eve. The law "thou shall not kill" could have helped when Cain slew Abel, but there was no such tablet in those days. So why did it take God so long?

I don't think God had decided on a "chosen people" until Abraham at least; the decalogue is a sort of graduation present to the Hebrews (descendents of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob) for sticking with the whole monotheism thing through thick and thin, maybe?

 

[JanisChambers]

Agreed,

Now, there is a reason why I am harping on this moral discernment theme.

Through Janice questions, that started the whole thread, there was certain elements that suggested that moral discernment is against God's plan. For instance: "We do everything in our power to teach our children right from wrong, we carefully watch our children in their youth to make sure they do not harm themselves or harm others all in the hope they eventually take on responsibility in their actions.
So, why was the sin such a sin?"

Prior to their fall, moral discernment was not necessary, since there was no evil to defend against and everything was orderly. That being said, moral discernment was within their reach from the very fact they where intelligent. It was never wrong to be able of moral discernment, it was just wholly unnecessary and likely grapeled with notions that where foreign and made no sense.

The problem was for men to introduce their own moral judgment of what is right and wrong, thus breaking the balance. This is the true transgression of eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

Evil isn't an entity, it's a judgment toward an action. Adam and Eve, as you said, had free will, but not the knowledge of good and evil, which is very plainly stated was what the tree provided. How can you presuppose they did purely good actions when they didn't even understand what those actions were, and worse yet, how could God be angry at them for taking an action was bad. If they had a truly perfect moral compass, if evil didn't exist, when how could they have possibly of sinned?

 

[JanisChambers]

Agreed,
Through Janice questions, that started the whole thread, there was certain elements that suggested that moral discernment is against God's plan. For instance: "We do everything in our power to teach our children right from wrong, we carefully watch our children in their youth to make sure they do not harm themselves or harm others all in the hope they eventually take on responsibility in their actions.
So, why was the sin such a sin?"

I didn't make any argument about God's plan, more of the Justification of the God Characters response to Adam and Eve's actions.

1. Two people who knew no evil.
2. They committed an evil act (according to God)
3. By not understanding the evil act they committed, they were not prepared for the situation they were put in.
4. You say evil was never there, so they didn't have to discern right from wrong, then that doesn't explain the serpent, he's responsible for getting eve to eat it in the first place.
5 Even *if* Adan and Eve were able to tell the difference between right or wrong, they had no knowledge of either one.

 

[JanisChambers]

You know Occam's Razor might suggest the simplest explanation here is the story has to do with what the humans who began the tale intended, not what some imaginary god intended. So all this philosophizing about free will and pre and post sin wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with the story. That stuff may just be distortions which occurred over the years of telling and retelling.

The intent of the story was most likely one of control and an explanation for pain and suffering. And if you look at the themes of religion throughout the world and throughout history several are fairly common across cultures.

Hope for life after death and for not really losing those who die.
Attempts to control disasters either personal or widespread.
An explanation for why natural things happen.
Control by leaders exploiting religious beliefs for personal gain.
The benefit of a sense of belonging to a group.

(I think those are the main ones, maybe someone can think of a few others.)

So taking those themes of religious stories into consideration, the more mundane, "do as I say, believe as I believe or you'll be sorry" and "God is punishing you, that's why the crops failed" would seem to fit the 'moral of the story' without all the philosophizing about free will. It makes more sense to me that part was added the first time someone said, "Well why did God put the tree there in the first place?"

Nicely put, that's the way I see it in a Nut Shell.

 

[OSS 117]

I didn't make any argument about God's plan, more of the Justification of the God Characters response to Adam and Eve's actions.

1. Two people who knew no evil.
2. They committed an evil act (according to God)
3. By not understanding the evil act they committed, they were not prepared for the situation they were put in.
4. You say evil was never there, so they didn't have to discern right from wrong, then that doesn't explain the serpent, he's responsible for getting eve to eat it in the first place.
5 Even *if* Adan and Eve were able to tell the difference between right or wrong, they had no knowledge of either one.

Hi Janice,

First, allow me to back off some of my previous arguments, in which I feel I allowed myself to experiment a bit to much.

Much of your argumentation is that lacking the knowledge of good and evil, their sin of disobedience was lesser in importance and that the whole thing seem to not be fair or lack sense. (Maybe I'm making this to simple... it's not my intention)

Have you explored that on the contrary, the very fact they had nothing in them urging them to sin, that their fault was actually quite grave since I think we agreed that in the orderly state they was, understanding that they had only one Law not to transgress was well within their grasp.

That it is like some have suggested the very fact they had no inherent weakness and motivation to sin, that makes the sin graver and not lesser.

 

[Robin]

Have you explored that on the contrary, the very fact they had nothing in them urging them to sin, that their fault was actually quite grave since I think we agreed that in the orderly state they was, understanding that they had only one Law not to transgress was well within their grasp.

One law or a million laws makes no difference. With no knowledge of good and evil how did they know transgressing a law was evil?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Isn't the weird part that a perfect, omniscient creator must have known that all of this would happen anyway?

 

[JanisChambers]

Hi Janice,

First, allow me to back off some of my previous arguments, in which I feel I allowed myself to experiment a bit to much.

Much of your argumentation is that lacking the knowledge of good and evil, their sin of disobedience was lesser in importance and that the whole thing seem to not be fair or lack sense. (Maybe I'm making this to simple... it's not my intention)

Have you explored that on the contrary, the very fact they had nothing in them urging them to sin, that their fault was actually quite grave since I think we agreed that in the orderly state they was, understanding that they had only one Law not to transgress was well within their grasp.

That it is like some have suggested the very fact they had no inherent weakness and motivation to sin, that makes the sin graver and not lesser.

I dissagre with that whole heartedly. I still do not understand this "pure' or "perfect" state you claim they had, not to mention the story says absolutely nothing about such a state of mind and I challenge you to find it. Not that they were "without sin" but that they indeed could not sin. Of course if the bible did claim they could not sin, then that would be an instant conflict.

Adam and Eve could not even understand the idea of good and evil because they didn't even have the knowledge of good and evil. With that knowledge safely put into that fruit there was no way they would understand that not listening to god as wrong, being that the concept of wrong was not in them. It's like giving a three year old a calculus problem and then hitting them on the hand with a ruler for not being able to answer it.

Now, as allegory this story could have some kind of redeeming underlying value.. I honestly don't know. As a story, however, it just does not seem at all logical. Nothing adds up

A. Adam and Eve were perfectly moral beings and so they shouldn't have been able to sin.

B. They were ignorant of good and evil (for which is contained in the fruit) and so could not be responsible for their own actions, like toddlers.

Whatever the way was God punished them extremely harsh and carried the punishment from generation to generation, aparently not enough people suffered the cure. Why god didn't make a new adam and eve minus the snake, I may never know.

 

[OSS 117]

One law or a million laws makes no difference. With no knowledge of good and evil how did they know transgressing a law was evil?

"Genesis 2:17. But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death."

Seems clear and explicit enough to me.

The way forward against your argument is simply that A&E did not need to understand good or evil, since the consequence of their action is laid out clearly: For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

A few times already, Janice used the analogy of kids not knowing better. Quite often with kids, parents warn of consequence rather then educate on more complicated concepts to achieve the same mean.

Thus seems to be the case here also. Agree ?