Original Sin?

[denmans]

The expulsion from Eden is a common enough story to perhaps have some metaphorical truth but to what does it refer. Well I’ve got a theory, which I would like to share and ask for comments. Whatever it was it appears to have been a marked change in the human condition. The advent of syphilis might have been a good one but this came much later I believe. What else would have such an effect?
How about the knowledge of the direct association between sex and childbirth, which must have burst upon our stone-age ancestors like, well, a sword of flame.

It is thought that the direct association was made surprisingly late in the civilisation/evolutionary process: not much earlier than the first static farming. The main problem with this knowledge may have been the rate of death in childbirth which, in humans, can be well over 10% and much worse for very young mothers. (This reminds me of another related biblical metaphor – ‘In sorrow shall ye bring forth children’ – as punishment for eating of the fruit of knowledge. It is the size of our heads ie brains which causes all the trouble - what a wonderful metaphor)

Imagine a stone-age home prior to this knowledge. I wouldn’t call it Eden but on cold winter’s night there wouldn’t be much to do and incest would probably be very common. Imagine a young male ‘knowing’ his young sister who later dies in childbirth. He may have been very fond of his young sister. What if ‘the knowledge’ arrives shortly after? He caused the death of his favourite sister! – Guilt, control by elders, separation of sexes, tribal taboos, religious intolerance, even politics, would follow very quickly. Think about it. Was this ‘the fall’?

[clandestine]

Sorry, I don't really know how to say this, but I think you're wrong. Original sin is the loss of innocence. It has nothing to do with sex. I would indeed say that it holds a metaphorical truth: it is the story of the 'coming of age' of the human race. Take for example a child. A young baby's knowledge is very basic, it knows when it's cold or hungry, and it cries until it is comforted by its mother. It doesn't know what "good" or "evil" is. Soon the baby grows, and begans looking around. They react wth affection to people and things that they recognize. They start making all of those cute baby sounds that are not really "communication" yet, just an imitation of the sounds we make. Have you ever seen a baby that could talk, but didn't know what the words ment? A baby might mean by the word "da da," mother, sister, father, hello, 'hold me', and even 'I'm sleepy.' Eventually babies learn to communicate with words. The next major hurdle is pottey training. The child knows enough to understand that using the toilet is desirable, and that 'accidents' are undesirable. They know to feel guilty and ashamed when they have an accident--even though these accidents are commited in innocence (after all, they're still learning!) However, even a two-year-old will run around unashamedly naked. They know certain behaviors are not allowed, but they don't know why. They are innocents. Nevertheless, children grow up. They lose there innocence, generally (at least at first) by breaking the rules. A child may be told not to touch the fire, that it's hot, but they don't know that it burns until they touch it. With age comes expierence, and with expierence comes knowledge. The story of Original Sin is a story of growing up. A stone age person need only compare themselves to any of the other animals around them and the realization comes that humans are something special. Animals don't think about their deaths. A mouse does not compare itself to an owl and think, "I wish I were and owl and not a mouse like I am." They do not ask complex questions like, "Where did I come from?" or "Why am I here?" The animals that share this world with us are vastly different than ourselves. They are simple-minded, innocent. Even the predators do not 'kill' so much as 'get food.' For someone familiar with children it does not take a great strech of the imagination to hypothesize that maybe, once humans were that way too; human babies are enough that way in the first place, they only grow up to become different, set apart from their fellow creatures. One might very easily reach the conclusion that we grew up as human beings along time ago...

Your theory is implasible for several reasons. First, the belief that sex and childbirth are related would have been a slow painful revolution for any peoples. When beliefs are ingrained for tens of centuries they do not change overnight or even in a life time. Even today there are poeple who refuse to belive that sex and childbrith are related, just as today in Europe and the U.S. some people still believe that geting your feet wet will make you sick, or that bread crusts make your hair curly. Second, your theory is wrong because there have been other realizations, such as the existence of bacteria as microscopic life forms that make us sick. During the black plague poeple would hold flowers to their noses to purifiy the air and thereby not get sick. They didn't know what worked and what didn't. Why did we not have a like revolution when we realized the relation between bacteria and sickness? It's because that knowlegde has not changed us, not as the earlier development did. We did not go from being chimps to humans, or from being humans to martians. The people of the middle ages are essentially the same as we are today.

Phew! That was long! ;)

[Union Jack]

Original sin is not a completely “bad” thing. In fact, the fall of man commonly appears in literature as a Felix culpa (Latin for “fortunate fault.”) Eve’s choice to eat from the tree of knowledge is the first actual exercise of freewill, which up to that point, existed only as a potential capability of humanity. According to the view of “the fall of man” presented in John Milton’s Paradise Lost (which I agree with) Eve desired the fruit from the tree, because she believed that it would raise her up to be Adam’s equal. Whereas Adam realized that Eve had fallen when she approached him with the fruit, he understood the consequences of the action he was about to take, yet he still decided to eat the fruit because he loved Eve more than God and wanted to stay with her, even in her fallen state. The fall becomes a Felix culpa, because it opens up real possibilities to humanity, one could now choose to seek salvation or to sin and lead a life opposed to God. Of course Milton was not a humanist, and one of the purposes of this presentation of the tale is to refute humanism’s base statement that “man is the measure of all things” according to Milton, the fall proves that man is not the measure of all things because man’s logic is fallible, which Adam comes to realize. The poem ends on a positive note of Archangel Michael showing Adam the future of humanity, Adam comes to understand his fault, and thus gains true wisdom…

"This having learnt, thou hast attained the sum
Of Wisdom...
Then wilt thou not be loth
To leave this Paradise, but shalt possess
A paradise within thee, happier far."
(Paradise Lost, Book XII.575–587)

God allows the fall to occur in order for man to fail, and thus gain true wisdom. Man realizes that knowledge does not provide power, which Eve believed when she listened to Satan’s whisperings, but rather the desire for power through knowledge cause man to overreach his human limitations.

If anyone is interested, I can post my complete interpretation of Milton’s Paradise Lost, as I have studied the work extensively.

P.S (Post Scriptum): When I use the word “man,” I refer to humanity, not just man as opposed to woman, I do recognize that humanity is not compromised of solely the male sex. :D

[ThatIndividual]

Bravo, UnionJack, Bravo indeed! A good read, that. Thanks

[Union Jack]

Bravo, UnionJack, Bravo indeed! A good read, that. Thanks
Cheers. :)

[blazeofglory]

The expulsion from Eden is a common enough story to perhaps have some metaphorical truth but to what does it refer. Well I’ve got a theory, which I would like to share and ask for comments. Whatever it was it appears to have been a marked change in the human condition. The advent of syphilis might have been a good one but this came much later I believe. What else would have such an effect?
How about the knowledge of the direct association between sex and childbirth, which must have burst upon our stone-age ancestors like, well, a sword of flame.

It is thought that the direct association was made surprisingly late in the civilisation/evolutionary process: not much earlier than the first static farming. The main problem with this knowledge may have been the rate of death in childbirth which, in humans, can be well over 10% and much worse for very young mothers. (This reminds me of another related biblical metaphor – ‘In sorrow shall ye bring forth children’ – as punishment for eating of the fruit of knowledge. It is the size of our heads ie brains which causes all the trouble - what a wonderful metaphor)

Imagine a stone-age home prior to this knowledge. I wouldn’t call it Eden but on cold winter’s night there wouldn’t be much to do and incest would probably be very common. Imagine a young male ‘knowing’ his young sister who later dies in childbirth. He may have been very fond of his young sister. What if ‘the knowledge’ arrives shortly after? He caused the death of his favourite sister! – Guilt, control by elders, separation of sexes, tribal taboos, religious intolerance, even politics, would follow very quickly. Think about it. Was this ‘the fall’?

Sacredness and profanity are things twain
Both are vital nothing is there to complain
One can not exist without others though they do not coexist
Both of them are related in life and in everything both persist

We can not think of a clear day without followed by a day of rain
Both happen in life equally whether it is joy or of course p
The first seen committed by our great, great, great grandmother was not in fact a sin

If she had not sinned at all we never in this beautiful earth have been

For both of them they things of twains
One can not come without the others' fain.

[Granny5]

Orginal Sin...my Mom always said it was selfishness. If a baby wasn't selfish, it wouldn't survive. Babies just know what they need/want. They don't care if the mother is busy, sick, tired, or dead..they just need what the need and need it RIGHT NOW. She said babies are born selfish and part of growing up is learning to consider others. That may be why females mature faster than males.

[Brandyblue]

In my opinion (which I admit I usually overrate) we might as well do Biblical authors the courtesy of assuming that they knew what they meant, at least most of the time. If you are talking about the Old Testament story of the expulsion from Eden, then it is a heart wrenching story about the relationship between God and the human race. If you are talking about a story invented long ago when people discovered how babies are made, then I have no comment to make, because we have not access to that story (if it existed) and do not know what was said. Any connection between the two stories is purely conjectural.

That said, for all I know you may be 100% right. Thanks for raising an interesting question.

I find the coming of age theory more convincing. The tree was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil, after all. Nevertheless, I'm not totally satisfied with it. Children don't learn good from bad by doing bad, except to the extent that trial-and-error apply. Mostly, they learn what to consider good or bad from their parents until they are old enough to form their own judgements.

In short, I think that the expulsion from Eden story is about what it says it is, not about some concealed meaning. It stands naked and unashamed.

[RichardHresko]

Technically, original sin refers to the deprivation of God's grace due to our partaking in the sin of Adam. We share Adam's guilt. According to Augustine it is transmitted by conception through the sexual act, but is not itself the sexual act. Some later theologians, such as Odo, take it to be the sexual act that that results in conception. Augustine's take on original sin is that because of it our nature is corrupted.

It should be pointed out that some of the consequences of original sin include 'limbo' for unbaptised babies, and this is being reconsidered by the Roman Catholic Church.

[blazeofglory]

Orginal Sin...my Mom always said it was selfishness. If a baby wasn't selfish, it wouldn't survive. Babies just know what they need/want. They don't care if the mother is busy, sick, tired, or dead..they just need what the need and need it RIGHT NOW. She said babies are born selfish and part of growing up is learning to consider others. That may be why females mature faster than males.

Very realistic indeed. I agree that life requires struggles and without struggle there is so survival and that is how the idea of the original sin crops up.

[jon1jt]

My mommy had a theory that the Jesus mythos was the collective unconscious' way of devising a 'shut off valve' against any future claim to messiah. I wonder if it's true. I'll ask my daddy.

[524178]

Question: Where did the phrase, 'Original Sin' originate? I personally don't know.

(I am going to think (or write) aloud here...so let's see where my train of thought takes me...I enjoy these thought experiments.)

Going by how I currently understand the word 'original', as something novel, and as something that was inspired in it of itself, 'Original Sin' would, to me, refer to an act, in this case, sin, that was committed in it of itself. I don't want to associate the word 'original' with something happening first, because, for example, if two people separated in time and space comes up with exactly the same discovery, invention, idea, etc., I would think that both of their discoveries, inventions, ideas, etc. would be original. One could very well use the word 'original' as 'first,' which in that case, whoever preceded the other in time of the discovery, invention, idea, etc. would be considered as the 'original' author. And yet, focusing on the idea or discovery itself, regardless of time, it would be original, given that he/she has not copied or borrowed the idea from someone. In other words, if someone in a remote island came up with what we refer to as Newton's Law, all by him/herself, it would still be considered as an original action on his part, according to how I am using the word 'original,' although Newton would still be considered as the first one to discover it. Taking a step back, I suppose I need to distinguish act from action, and sin from the act of sinning. Hmm...this would add another dimension to my thought experiment.

With all that said, I think every act of sin could be considered original, meaning originally inspired (well, not original in the sense that it shares a catagory of sin). Now, someone may think he/she acted to copy someone's action, but the intention and motivation behind it would be original in the sense that it was original for that person.

Whoa, I am going stop here...I think I need to refine my definition or original before I go on.

Cheers,
524178

[Virgil]

How about the knowledge of the direct association between sex and childbirth, which must have burst upon our stone-age ancestors like, well, a sword of flame.

It is thought that the direct association was made surprisingly late in the civilisation/evolutionary process: not much earlier than the first static farming.

I'm not going to comment on the theological argument you make. But you're underlying assumption (which I've left in your quote above) is somewhat dubious to me. What makes you say that? At a minimum the breeding of animals, which requires knowledge of the linking of sexual intercourse with producing offspring, goes back before farming. And what evidence is there that early man did not understand the cause and effect of sexual intercourse? They may not have been scientific, but they weren't stupid. You made the statement, what evidence is there to support it?

[AwayAloneAlast]

Curiously, the 'original sin' claim is found in religions beyond just Christianity. Take Hinduism, for example (the religion besides Christianity about which I know most); certain schools maintain that Brahma created the world through a sort of hubris, a sin--that is why you never see Brahma worshiped in India. Moreover, our Karma (action) from past lives is what is responsible for our rebirths. The ultimate goal is to stop this cycle of reincarnations; one only reincarnates to redeem oneself of the sin of karma.

[blazeofglory]

Curiously, the 'original sin' claim is found in religions beyond just Christianity. Take Hinduism, for example (the religion besides Christianity about which I know most); certain schools maintain that Brahma created the world through a sort of hubris, a sin--that is why you never see Brahma worshiped in India. Moreover, our Karma (action) from past lives is what is responsible for our rebirths. The ultimate goal is to stop this cycle of reincarnations; one only reincarnates to redeem oneself of the sin of karma.

Indeed there re nuances of Buddhism in your writing, and of course marvelously presented, and this takes us to the depth of what the Vedas give, and of course the Buddha too.

[thechampion]

you guys are babies. original sin is what makes the world go round, along with murder and insanity.

[NikolaiI]

Curiously, the 'original sin' claim is found in religions beyond just Christianity. Take Hinduism, for example (the religion besides Christianity about which I know most); certain schools maintain that Brahma created the world through a sort of hubris, a sin--that is why you never see Brahma worshiped in India. Moreover, our Karma (action) from past lives is what is responsible for our rebirths. The ultimate goal is to stop this cycle of reincarnations; one only reincarnates to redeem oneself of the sin of karma.

In truth it's very similar to Pure Land Buddhism, too.

[blazeofglory]

I infer there is no sin as a matter of fact and what we call sin is simply not presence of sacredness and these are simply material attributes and nothing else.

Indeed there are nothing called sin and consecrate and indeed there are none.

In nature no one can be free of sins and this is indeed part and parcel of life.