Theological Theory; Re: Original Sin

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I've had a musing scratching at my brain for some time. It's not a concept I'm wedded to (and even if I were divorces are cheap and easy) bt I wanted to bounce it off of those more pious than myself...which is just about everybody else.

In Genesis I read that the tree forbidden to humanity was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I interpret this to mean moral consciousness and in this regard humanity was--in those times--morally innocent as if a child.

Now The Shining One approaches Eve and tempts her with self-deification, i.e. "your eyes shall be opened and you shall be as gods yourself". OK, it seems a rather treacherous thing to usurp authority from one's creator for something little more than selfish gain BUT...

...humans did not possess a moral consciousness because: they had yet to eat of the fruit that would grant such knowledge.

My theory/musing surmises that until they had gained that consiousness the very act of eating the fruit was in and of its own an act of ignorance and excusable to a certain degree and in fact we read of God calling to Adam to show himself. A curious phrasing for the presumably Omniscient, thus the calling must have wholly been for humanity's benefit not God's lack of vision so I take this to be a call to repentence.

To my mind *snicker* the Original Sin was not the eating of the fruit but the obfuscation, blame-shifting and lying by the now morally conscious humans seeking to hide what had moment's earlier been a misguided act of ignorance. Had they instead owned-up to their failing the subsequent narrative could have been entirely different. Forgive the Nixonian reference but: it wasn't the crime, it was the cover-up that proved their undoing.

What say you?

[thundley4]

Did they not also sin by disobeying God?  Didn't he forbid them from eating the fruit? Couldn't that disobedience be the original sin? 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Did they not also sin by disobeying God?  Didn't he forbid them from eating the fruit? Couldn't that disobedience be the original sin? 

Again: my line of inquiry assumes that disobedience is wrong (read: evil) BUT as they lacked moral consciousness "wrong" was a concept that held no sway over their actions* at that time because they had yet to eat of the fruit that would grant them knowledge of good and evil/wrong.


* Now it might be argued that since wrong had no context in a pre-fallen state humanity could have conceivably committed any number of heinous acts with moral impunity. I would offer that the acts of evil that currently define humanity would not have occurred because these acts are based on pride and selfishness things that they would have also been ignorant. Morality has to be an act of choice to have any true meaning. One cannot accidently usurp the king's throne anymore than Christ could have unintentionally died for the salvation of his followers.

When we view lesser beasts we see them as a part of nature, their every act simply as a part of a greater whole. But when we look at ourselves we must see every action as something that rather than being a continuum is instead creates ripples (deviations? distortions?). We act not as a part of the whole but seperated from it. I believe this is why the pious are enjoined to pray "Thy will be done" because it seeks to rejoin the greater whole that would have proceeded undisturbed had not innumerable lesser wills imposed themselves.





Again, these are my personal musings and I do not present them as an attempt to instruct my betters and in that vein your comments are genuinely appreciated.

[MrsSmith]

In the beginning, the ten commandments were just 2.  "Do not eat of this tree, nor this tree."  Even with just 2, we couldn't obey.

While humanity may not yet have had the knowledge of good and evil, they did have the ability to understand the word, "No," so no excuse for "lack of knowledge."

However, if you read carefully, you see that the one deceived, Eve, had not been told by God not to eat the fruit, she had been told by her husband.  Therefore, as he had the word from God, His sin was accounted greater than hers.  

As for God calling them, as John tells us that Jesus was always with God, I think that it was Jesus who walked in the Garden with them...especially as God tells us later that no one can see His face and survive.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

In the beginning, the ten commandments were just 2.  "Do not eat of this tree, nor this tree."  Even with just 2, we couldn't obey.

Actually, "be fruitful and multiply" preceded that command.

While humanity may not yet have had the knowledge of good and evil, they did have the ability to understand the word, "No," so no excuse for "lack of knowledge."

I have heard this before and considered it.

I would liken this to telling an inexperienced child not to touch a hot stove. The child is innocent--perhaps curious, perhaps disobedient--but even if they remain dutiful they remain ignorant concerning the motivations underlying the command.

However, if you read carefully, you see that the one deceived, Eve, had not been told by God not to eat the fruit, she had been told by her husband.  Therefore, as he had the word from God, His sin was accounted greater than hers.

 
Granted without argument but something of an aside.

Still to entertain the thought it always struck me as archtypical of the human condition that Adam was quite the blame shifter. Eve blamed the serpent...perhaps to assuage her own guilt and perhaps even to protect Adam but Adam said "it was the woman that YOU gave me!" in other words he was blaming God for bestowing a totally hawt babe upon him. Indeed, people blame God for their personal failings.

As for God calling them, as John tells us that Jesus was always with God, I think that it was Jesus who walked in the Garden with them...especially as God tells us later that no one can see His face and survive.

Also granted but still an aside.

I am not a stranger to the nuances of the text, i.e. how the original command was to not eat but it had been expounded to include "do not touch" even though the entirety of the garden--without noted exceptions--was to be tended. I do not want to lose the subject in side boards and I guess it boils down to: which was greater: the sin of pre-morality disobedience or the morally cognizant act of lying and obfuscation in the face of offered repentance?

I have pity for a burned child--even a disobedient one--but who among us would pity a malicious arsonist caught in his own devising?

[USA4ME]

In Genesis I read that the tree forbidden to humanity was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I interpret this to mean moral consciousness and in this regard humanity was--in those times--morally innocent as if a child.

...humans did not possess a moral consciousness because: they had yet to eat of the fruit that would grant such knowledge.

What say you?

I disagree with your premise.  Their "moral conscience" knew the difference between right and wrong, otherwise Eve upon being asked of Satan "Has God said you cannot eat of any tree of the garden?," she would not have answered (paraphrased) "We can eat of any tree except one of which God has forbidden."  Knowing you are not allowed to do something and the reason why automatically tells me they had a moral conscience, or IOW they knew it wasn't OK.  Without a moral conscience, then when God initially gave them the command it wouldn't even have registered with them because they wouldn't have had that mental capacity to grasp it, and certainly not be able to answer as she did.

Granted, as you've recognized after they were caught they did start an immediate cover-up and blame game, so yes their eyes were opened in ways they weren't before.  But, both of them knew they weren't to do it, they had that moral conscience enough to repeat in words that it was forbidden, but they did it anyway.

.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I disagree with your premise.  Their "moral conscience" knew the difference between right and wrong, otherwise Eve upon being asked of Satan "Has God said you cannot eat of any tree of the garden?," she would not have answered (paraphrased) "We can eat of any tree except one of which God has forbidden."  Knowing you are not allowed to do something and the reason why automatically tells me they had a moral conscience, or IOW they knew it wasn't OK.  Without a moral conscience, then when God initially gave them the command it wouldn't even have registered with them because they wouldn't have had that mental capacity to grasp it, and certainly not be able to answer as she did.

Granted, as you've recognized after they were caught they did start an immediate cover-up and blame game, so yes their eyes were opened in ways they weren't before.  But, both of them knew they weren't to do it, they had that moral conscience enough to repeat in words that it was forbidden, but they did it anyway.

Thank-you for your input.

I would offer that what you have touched your finger on is intellectual ascent, not moral consciousness. You can still intellectually ackowledge dire consequences of something while being morally neutral on the subject, i.e. peeing on an electric fence.

To buttress my argument I would ask: why have a tree whose entire purpose was to grant the knowledge of good and evil? Scripture says that as soon as they ate of the tree they realized things they became conscious of their nakedness*. It wasn't the tree of shame they ate from; so why have a tree that would grant something they supposedly already had then tell them if they had it yet again it would kill them?

Now again, I hasten to remind you good folks that I am NOT the pious sort and I'm not trying to instruct anyone but I am trying to have a genuine dialogue about things that stand out in my mind. I thank you again for your comments and look forward to any additional comments you and anyone else would like to contribute (except for SA...he's a jerk).



* And I don't think the tree GAVE anything to them as much as it had things TAKEN from them. Humanity didn't gain a sense of repulsion at the sight of its own being it seems to have lost its sense of innocence and radiance and this is why we insist on covering ourselves with expensive clothes, bizare hairstyles, make-up and absurd amounts of shiny metals and stones.

[USA4ME]

I would offer that what you have touched your finger on is intellectual ascent, not moral consciousness. You can still intellectually ackowledge dire consequences of something while being morally neutral on the subject, i.e. peeing on an electric fence.

To buttress my argument I would ask: why have a tree whose entire purpose was to grant the knowledge of good and evil? Scripture says that as soon as they ate of the tree they realized things they became conscious of their nakedness.

I understand what you're saying, but I believe they go hand-in-hand.  God commanded, they knew it was forbidden.  God told them the day they ate of it they would surely die, so they knew there was consequences for disobedience.  But did they possess the knowledge of good and evil beyond "God said it is forbidden"? (And by that I mean did they understand that other acts were immoral, i.e. murder, stealing, etc...)  It doesn't appear so.    Before they ate they were naked and not ashamed, only after they ate did they feel ashamed.  They also felt shame in disobeying God in that they hid themselves from Him.  You can't feel shame for something unless you know you've done something wrong or you're conducting yourself in a way you shouldn't.  So they had enough intellectual ascent to understand the command not to do it because there would be consequences, and enough of a moral compass/free will to keep from doing it if they so chose.  Upon rejecting their moral compass, they disobeyed.

It wasn't the tree of shame they ate from; so why have a tree that would grant something they supposedly already had then tell them if they had it yet again it would kill them?

It seems the only forbidden act was "God said don't do this one thing."  I certainly couldn't defend the argument that them knowing "God forbids this" meant they had knowledge of good and evil.

Good rhetoric, but we might hit an impasse on the intellect ascent/moral compass.  I definately believe they work together.

.

[Chump]

It seems to me that your premise relies on moral knowledge being requisite to the ability to sin.  I would argue that the Original Sin was disobeying a very simple command, despite ignorance as to the reason behind the command.  Compare it to the principle of "ignorance of the Law is no excuse."

I appreciate your comments.  You have the hamster in my head running full speed.

[Celtic Rose]

In my view, the reason that children aren't considered culpable for their sin until age 7 or so is not because they can't understand what sin is, but rather that they lack the intellectual capacity to understand the consequences of their actions.  In my experience, fairly young kids know when they are doing something wrong, they just don't have the intellectual capacity to be held responsible.   

I believe that while Adam and Eve were innocent of the knowledge of Good and Evil, they still had the intellectual capacity to understand that they must obey God.  They may not have understood nakedness, evil, and so on, but they were in immediate contact with God, so I don't think it is necessarily a valid argument that their moral innocence prevented them from understanding that they should obey God. So they did the only thing that God told them not to do, and then once they gained the knowledge, they tried to cover up what they did.  They both tried to pass the blame, which in my opinion, amplified the sin. 

Sorry if this seems disjointed, I wrote it in a rush while getting ready for work.

[vesta111]

Argggggggg.

God at that time spoke only to Adam, he passed on to Eve what he was hearing in his mind from God.

Here's this big old tree filled with fruit that Eve sees every day.  Adam tells her it is poison, or does he.  Does he tell her that if she eats the fruit she may die,  Eve knows not death to a human.

Adam answers to GOD, Eve does not, she answers to no one. God gave HER free will.

So Eve decides it is just Adam that should not eat the fruit and she eats a few and it tastes GOOD.

Along comes Adam and he is amazed to see Eve chowing down on the fruit and nothing happens to her.

Now what, he can walk away or join her.  His choice, we all know what he did. He screwed up life on earth forever.

Now for thousands of years it is passed down that Eve the WOMAN led Adam into temptation.  His choice is now the fault of EVE, darn woman.

Original sin my butt, woman are born without that crap--see the virgin Mary.

It is the men that carry the desire to go against God.

Leave Eve alone she never spoke with god until after Adam used free will/

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Argggggggg.

God at that time spoke only to Adam, he passed on to Eve what he was hearing in his mind from God.

Here's this big old tree filled with fruit that Eve sees every day.  Adam tells her it is poison, or does he.  Does he tell her that if she eats the fruit she may die,  Eve knows not death to a human.

Adam answers to GOD, Eve does not, she answers to no one. God gave HER free will.

So Eve decides it is just Adam that should not eat the fruit and she eats a few and it tastes GOOD.

Along comes Adam and he is amazed to see Eve chowing down on the fruit and nothing happens to her.

Now what, he can walk away or join her.  His choice, we all know what he did. He screwed up life on earth forever.

Now for thousands of years it is passed down that Eve the WOMAN led Adam into temptation.  His choice is now the fault of EVE, darn woman.

Original sin my butt, woman are born without that crap--see the virgin Mary.

It is the men that carry the desire to go against God.

Leave Eve alone she never spoke with god until after Adam used free will/

O' virginal one: who here has indicted Eve? On the contrary I have seen nothing in this thread except discussions of when personal responsibility begins vis-a-vis intellectual cognizance vs. moral capacity.

The only mention of blame and the orignators is mine and that is when I noted Eve blamed the Shining One which I surmised not only included an attempt to escape her own personal responsibility but perhaps out of a loving instinct to save Adam from his failings. You'll note that such a theory rests on the assumption that Adam was at fault.

And while I did note Adam had blamed "the woman" (I am as powerless as yourself to alter the text) I included the balance of the allegation, "that you [referencing God] gave me;" at which point I noted that it was really God Adam was blaming for his own failings...as humans are wont to do.

I don't know where you obtained you presumed education concerning Christian doctrine but it certainly has no bearing or relation to this thread where--again--we are discuss the relationship between intellect and morality. When you feel like being part of the actual discussion please feel free to contribute.

[vesta111]

O' virginal one: who here has indicted Eve? On the contrary I have seen nothing in this thread except discussions of when personal responsibility begins vis-a-vis intellectual cognizance vs. moral capacity.

The only mention of blame and the orignators is mine and that is when I noted Eve blamed the Shining One which I surmised not only included an attempt to escape her own personal responsibility but perhaps out of a loving instinct to save Adam from his failings. You'll note that such a theory rests on the assumption that Adam was at fault.

And while I did note Adam had blamed "the woman" (I am as powerless as yourself to alter the text) I included the balance of the allegation, "that you [referencing God] gave me;" at which point I noted that it was really God Adam was blaming for his own failings...as humans are wont to do.

I don't know where you obtained you presumed education concerning Christian doctrine but it certainly has no bearing or relation to this thread where--again--we are discuss the relationship between intellect and morality. When you feel like being part of the actual discussion please feel free to contribute.

 I was not looking at the Christian side that came 6,000 years later, I was looking at the first chapter on how it all began, back before the Jews, Christians, Muslims etc.   Sorry to confuse you.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I was not looking at the Christian side that came 6,000 years later, I was looking at the first chapter on how it all began, back before the Jews, Christians, Muslims etc.   Sorry to confuse you.

I have read the recieved text numerous times and I was struck by the number of discrepancies between it and your revelation. Perhaps that--and the fact it had no bearing on the heretofore amicable conversation--is the source of my confusion.

[Celtic Rose]

Argggggggg.

God at that time spoke only to Adam, he passed on to Eve what he was hearing in his mind from God.

Here's this big old tree filled with fruit that Eve sees every day.  Adam tells her it is poison, or does he.  Does he tell her that if she eats the fruit she may die,  Eve knows not death to a human.

Adam answers to GOD, Eve does not, she answers to no one. God gave HER free will.

So Eve decides it is just Adam that should not eat the fruit and she eats a few and it tastes GOOD.

Along comes Adam and he is amazed to see Eve chowing down on the fruit and nothing happens to her.

Now what, he can walk away or join her.  His choice, we all know what he did. He screwed up life on earth forever.

Now for thousands of years it is passed down that Eve the WOMAN led Adam into temptation.  His choice is now the fault of EVE, darn woman.

Original sin my butt, woman are born without that crap--see the virgin Mary.

It is the men that carry the desire to go against God.

Leave Eve alone she never spoke with god until after Adam used free will/

As far as I know, only Catholics believe that Mary was born without original sin, which is why they celebrate the Assumption of Mary, rather than commemorating the dormition (death) of Mary.  Even if Mary had been born without Original Sin, she is considered unique among women.  No where in the bible does it even hint that women are born without original sin.

I have no idea where you got the idea that Adam answers to God, but Eve does not.  Both were given free will, but both ultimately answer to God for their actions as well, which is why both were punished for their actions.

Eve states clearly during her discussion with the Serpent that they have been told not to eat of the tree.  She knew exactly what God had told them not to do.  I know that as a woman I certainly feel temptation to sin.  I forget which Bible verse it is that says “For there is none without sin, no not one.  For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”.  Kind of bursts your bubble on the idea that women are without sin. 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

This could be an interesting subject of conversation but could we reserve it for a seperate thread?

ty

[Celtic Rose]

This could be an interesting subject of conversation but could we reserve it for a seperate thread?

ty

Sorry, back to Adam and Eve and the Apple.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Sorry, back to Adam and Eve and the Apple.

Actually, many ancients viewed the forbidden fruit as being a pomegranate because of the numbers of seeds it produces.

The semitic word for seed is zir, from which we draw our word zero. Note the seed-like shape of the drawn number. It also corresponds to the Orphic Egg of the pagan mysteries wherein a serpent is wrapped around the egg which allows the duly initiated to emerge with god-like knowledge...the very temptation that drew humanity to its doom.

[Wineslob]

Argggggggg.

God at that time spoke only to Adam, he passed on to Eve what he was hearing in his mind from God.

Here's this big old tree filled with fruit that Eve sees every day.  Adam tells her it is poison, or does he.  Does he tell her that if she eats the fruit she may die,  Eve knows not death to a human.

Adam answers to GOD, Eve does not, she answers to no one. God gave HER free will.

So Eve decides it is just Adam that should not eat the fruit and she eats a few and it tastes GOOD.

Along comes Adam and he is amazed to see Eve chowing down on the fruit and nothing happens to her.

Now what, he can walk away or join her.  His choice, we all know what he did. He screwed up life on earth forever.

Now for thousands of years it is passed down that Eve the WOMAN led Adam into temptation.  His choice is now the fault of EVE, darn woman.

Original sin my butt, woman are born without that crap--see the virgin Mary.

It is the men that carry the desire to go against God.

Leave Eve alone she never spoke with god until after Adam used free will/

Typical woman, it's always the husbands fault.