Philosophical ramblings on the Adam & Eve Parable

I'll first comment on the subtitle: That seems like a wrong conclusion. It opens the possibility: The idea seems to reduce the criminal law to pointlessness.Now onto my views on original sin: Personally I think the idea of original sin is a misreading of the story. Perhaps the misreading originated with Paul.To me, the idea behind the story is that man was created biologically as an animal (an ape, just as the theory of evolution would say). What differentiates man from ape is not biology, it is that man has knowledge of good and evil. The eating of forbidden fruit is simply a metaphor to account for this distinction.IMO the conclusion is not that we are sinful due to Adam's mistake. Rather, it is that we know good from evil, and hence cannot use ignorance as a way to deny our sinfulness. Since an innocent baby does not know good from evil, that baby is indeed innocent.Philosophers sometimes refer to "the principle of charity". The principle is that, when reading what somebody has written, one should attempt to understand it in a way that is charitable to the author. Here, "charitable" is intended to imply that the text as interpreted makes sense as rational argument or choice by the author.In reading the Adam and Eve story, I think we should read it in a way that is appropriately charitable toward God.

I think you may be right, demongoat. Or the adam metaphor shows that we have knowledge of good and evil. Therefore we are held responsible for our own sins. And it is our nature.The idea that we inherit Adam's sin seems quite wrong, in the sense that I don't find that spelled out in the scripture. It may be a more recent interpretation, and perhaps a mistaken one.

I would argue that here "knowledge" does not refer to a set of facts (x is good, y is evil). Rather, it refers to an ability to make wise judgements as to what is good and what is evil. If that is right, then we should all make the identical judgements as to what is good and what is evil. However, we don't. For example, President Bush apparently believes that certain interrogation methods that border on torture, when used against people designated as enemy combatants, are good. Many people strongly disagree.

In my opinion, this is something we learn. Our idea of what is good comes from our families and from the culture. This is why what is considered good can vary between cultures. That is surely an example of cultural influence.

I agree with all of that.edit: set a better subtitleThis message has been edited by nwr, 10-31-2005 08:28 PM

Two problems, jaywill:1: You are making this stuff up as you go along;2: If you had understood what Parasomnium's post was all about, you would have known better than to reply in the first place.But never mind. I imagine that Parasomnium is having a good laugh because you took him seriously.

It might be better described as "... for Carico." I think it doesn't have to do with the Adam and Eve story.

---

What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
(paraphrasing Mark 8:36)

Then you really should change the subtitle.As a general comment, you are over-using boldface in your posts. Too much boldface is quite distracting. It should be used sparingly. I saw no reference to the Adam and Eve story in the copy of Ephesians 5 that I examined. I would encourage you to stop preaching to me. This is a discussion forum, not a pulpit.

There was no such hint.There was a suggestion that you change your writing style so that you don't come across as preaching.