I’m Sorry I’m Alive: Part III – That Fruit Tastes Like Burning

Original Sin is one of mankind’s first, and therefore one of its most problematic, attempts at tackling why humans act as they do. Within Original Sin’s doctrine, prostrations must be made. We need some good medicine, damn it, to fix ourselves. There is, however, an explanation for our “sinfulness” that sheds supernatural, backtracking gobbledygook: human nature. It hasn’t changed and won’t anytime soon. We can, however, debunk and demystify the outrageous primeval claims that our nature grows from snacking forbidden fruit. The problem with Original Sin is that it uses the illogic of the Adam and Eve story as its framework and foundation.

            My previous posts have already established that the OT’s God, though he does a hell of a job moving over the face of the waters, isn’t the brightest crayon in the box. When Adam asks for a companion, God gives him animals. This sets up the first dilemma of God’s character: either he is not omniscient, for if he was he would surely have known what Adam wanted, or is stupid. Or perhaps he just has an off-beat sense of humor. That is possible. After all, this is the same God who punishes the talking snake by cursing it to slither on its belly for all time.

            Another dilemma presents itself: could Adam have known he wanted a woman? He doesn’t ask for one, although that is implied, only a companion. And why would he need a companion? If everything is blissful in the Garden, why does he feel lonely? Is his “sinful” nature imbedded the moment he was made from clay? These are the kinds of questions that point to Genesis trying to explain ancient societal norms after the fact. But, I’ll continue…

            So, God, who can move anywhere, see everything, know all thoughts, and smite anyone he sees fit, is absent when the talking snake “tempts” Eve? This suggests the snake is equal in power to God, if God cannot read its thoughts or know its whereabouts. Well, God was busy tending to…what could he be tending to, the creation of the Himalayas? He’s God. He can multitask. You want mountains? Snap, there they are, made while he was just talking to you about foreskins. If you want to take a more nefarious route, perhaps God wants Eve to listen to the talking snake, and why not? With Adam and Eve out of the Garden, God won’t have to clean up after them or put up with their loud music.

            With God’s dubious character established, another important point is the psychological and physiological levels of Adam and Eve’s development. Since they live a child-like existence in the Garden, are they children? If not, then they at least have child-like minds as they do not grasp the concept of death. Well, God had to tell them about it. Really, when was he going to get around to that, especially since their eventual knowledge of death gets them kicked out of the Garden? And when God banishes them, where are they going to go? Isn’t the whole world the Garden of Eden at this point? Does God turn everything but this hot spot between the Tigris and Euphrates into the harsh, kill-or-be-killed animal kingdom?

Here is the most troubling point of the Adam and Eve story: why does God banish them from Eden when they had no conception of right and wrong on the scale which God ultimately judges them? I mean, they don’t know any better because God won’t allow them to know better. He hinders their growth and maturity. So, when they eat the fruit, realize the truths hidden from them and want answers, God curses them and kicks them out? What a way to raise your children.

            The Adam and Eve story presents us with a terrifying situation: a reactionary God who not only gets lost in his own Garden while we succumb to “evil,” but one who does not raise his children with love, but selfishly disciples them. This cannot function as a moral foundation as an all-knowing, all-loving God willfully and arrogantly breaks his own code again and again for petty, superficial, and ultimately selfish reasons.

            My previous post provides a kinder interpretation of the story, though I realize its fallacies. Ancient religious authorities intended Adam and Eve as fact. The story was meant to control a desert people and provide them with a basis of understanding why they act the way they do. My interpretation hopes other teaching avenues are possible. Namely, that we abolish the doctrine of Original Sin, and instead use the Adam and Eve story to teach us about life, not death. For that is exactly what Original Sin depends upon when it cites Adam and Eve: the death our innocence for a crime committed in our ancient past, one for which we must always atone, since it factors into our heavenly judgment upon our leaving this mortal coil.

            While my interpretation has its problems, don’t cast out the Bible from your life. Yes, it has no place in politics or education, and to use it as statements of irrefutable fact to control people is wrong. It has inconsistencies and immoralities. And it should. It is ancient literature, history, and social commentary all wrapped up in one. To cast it out would be to commit the same folly God does with Adam and Eve—you’ll miss out on the learning experience.

            In Part IV, my final post on Original Sin, I’ll examine the doctrine’s establishment, its historical and theological uses, and where it should take us from here.