The trinity in the GoE is that of the human psyche, not that of God, unless one interprets the psyche as an image of God. It is a trinity of brain base, limbic system and cortex. In the story the human brain has reached a point of evolution from which consciousness of self with the realization that one will die appears. This psychobiological explanation of the myth may indicate why the myth persists. It is based on something every human experiences in growth and development.
This is false. The Siege of Troy was accepted as historical fact by Greeks and Romans throughout their eras.
The myths contained within the story were thought by many, and they were correct, as false. (such as talking horses, and the Cyclops)
So no, the whole point of calling a thing a myth is to separate it from the truth, whilst maintaining a story to illustrate a moral lesson.
Original Sin was an invention of the priesthood that demanded that their followers would need the advice of priests as soon as you were born. There was to be no getting over your wretched state, by being good, as good as made you evil and commanded you to act against your nature.
There goes Campbell and Jung!
I think original sin has two features-----it recognizes the killer in us…and it is an attempt to control this part of human nature especially for people who don’t have good control…so if you kill you will go to jail and hell both…
Serpent=brain base=source of raw impulse (Id).
Eve=limbic system=source of emotion (ego)
Adam =cortex=source of options (superego)
All three are one in the human brain.
Original sin is the “fall” into self-conscious mind.
Not really. There is a difference between a myth that is simply a fiction and the use to which the characters in myth are employed as archetypes.
Personally I think it is possible to completely reject Jung’s mysticism without loss of existential appreciation of life; though I can see why people might want to see reality that way: none of this bears on the overstated claim that "all myths contain truth: which is abundantly false.
The simple fact is, that if you have not heard of the archetype, and the myths from which they are generated are not part of your childhood ideology they completely loose their power and explanatory use. Jung was mistaken if he implied that archetypes were universal: they are nothing but culturally contingent and arbitrary.
My objection here is amply demonstrated by your bizarre musings:
Which are meaningless to most people in the most profound sense of meaningless.
The only truthful answer to the thread title is one which I made above. ANd that is the ONLY truth about OS.
Lev,
“Most people” haven’t spoken. Just you. It takes more than childhood indoctrination to make a myth persist. I’m just saying that the more in the case of the GoE is biological experience. But, no matter what I say here in these fora, you will object to my opinion. There is a rich tradition of biopsychology (Toobey { SIC}, Cosmides, Piaget, et.al.)
Skakos,
I did not attempt to usurp your thread, just to add another dimension to it. I do believe there is truth behind most myths, otherwise they would have persisted throughout history. I see the myths as evolving memes. To evolve, they must at least contain something of an archetype. The Bible is replete with myths, but also includes some accurate history.
The myths speak to one side of the brain; the history speaks to another.
Original sin, for me, is forgetting original blessing. Maybe that was so for Adam.
duplicate post
From your original pithy response I think my answer was more than comprehensive. And comprehensively ignored by yourself.
I think that the concept of original sin is probably akin, not related to, but comes from the same kind of mindset or attitude which people have concerning the crucifixion of Christ. Even I bought into it, which I suppose couldn’t be helped since the church teaches that christ came to save all of us - we are all directly or indirectly responsible for christ’s crucifixion - even though I wasn’t there myself so I really don’t know how I could even determine in the here and now how I might have been responsible for it back then. I may have been one of those opposed to it in reality. I may have been one of those who liked or even loved christ and followed his message. But I wasn’t back then so any sins which I have committed now only pertain to me since my birth - they are not retroactive following me from the Garden of Eden. If I do not experience heaven or eden now, it is because of what I choose to do now, not because of what the church teaches i am responsible for. That is not my experience of the sins of the parents being revisited upon the children though in a real sense, that may be psychologically true because of our biological parents.
I think there is that same mindset toward original sin. I wasn’t in the garden of eden with adam and eve (which to me is a myth too - which points toward a great truth (whichever it comes for us). I didn’t try to talk them into biting that juicy apple or force them into it so we could all gain more knowledge than we were ready for at the time. So there could really be no "original’ sin tied to my core or my soul (if I indeed have one) as I came into existence as I didn’t exist back then. I have no idea how I might have reacted had I existed back then. I do have a feeling that I too may have been too tempted not to have taken a bite out of that apple. After all, what do we learn by not being curious? lol
I greatly affirm that we must be responsible for our own actions and the consequences which come from that behavior but that’s it. I won’t be responsible for adam and eve’s nor will I be responsible, or share in the responsibility of man’s inhumanity toward god/man way back then.
Interconnectedness and solidarity is for me a thing of the present.
I think that the concept of original sin is probably akin, not related to, but comes from the same kind of mindset or attitude which people have concerning the crucifixion of Christ. Even I bought into it, which I suppose couldn’t be helped since the church teaches that christ came to save all of us - we are all directly or indirectly responsible for christ’s crucifixion - even though I wasn’t there myself so I really don’t know how I could even determine in the here and now how I might have been responsible for it back then. I may have been one of those opposed to it in reality. I may have been one of those who liked or even loved christ and followed his message. But I wasn’t back then so any sins which I have committed now only pertain to me since my birth - they are not retroactive following me from the Garden of Eden. If I do not experience heaven or eden now, it is because of what I choose to do now, not because of what the church teaches i am responsible for. That is not my experience of the sins of the parents being revisited upon the children though in a real sense, that may be psychologically true because of our biological parents.
I think there is that same mindset toward original sin. I wasn’t in the garden of eden with adam and eve (which to me is a myth too - which points toward a great truth (whichever it comes for us). I didn’t try to talk them into biting that juicy apple or force them into it so we could all gain more knowledge than we were ready for at the time. So there could really be no "original’ sin tied to my core or my soul (if I indeed have one) as I came into existence as I didn’t exist back then. I have no idea how I might have reacted had I existed back then. I do have a feeling that I too may have been too tempted not to have taken a bite out of that apple. After all, what do we learn by not being curious? lol
I greatly affirm that we must be responsible for our own actions and the consequences which come from that behavior but that’s it. I won’t be responsible for adam and eve’s nor will I be responsible, or share in the responsibility of man’s inhumanity toward god/man way back then.
Interconnectedness and solidarity is for me a thing of the present.
Original sin condemns us all. I find myself puzzled by the idea, and why people have swallowed this so seemingly willingly.
If it were not for the sad fact that through history people have been enforced, cajoled and pressured to accept the authority of the priesthoods, I don’t think either OS or the sacrifice of the Crucifix make any sense at all. i suppose they somehow used to appeal to an ancient cultural logic which is now hidden from us in the modern world. Everytime I’ve asked a Xian to explain what “died to save us” means, they seem to respond to in exactly the same way every time. Xians always think that a description is some sort of explanation.
So here’s a challenge to any Christians out there: what the hell does it mean: “Died to save us”? Tell me why an omnipotent, omniscient god has to kill himself to “save” humanity. And Save them from what exactly?
THis is all just meaningless.
What is meaningless here is the fact that the majority of interpretations of original sin are far too literal to compel discussion.
duplicate
duplicate
No, I think not. Both the idea of original sin and the salvation were meant exactly as they appear to mean (even taking Adam and Eve as a myth: and the Crucifixion too.). The reason they are meaningless is the fact that these ideas no longer appeal to modern cultural logic.
It is my contention that they never were coherent ideas even within the Christian ideology of the time they were invented by the priesthood.
If you would furnish your interpretation of both of them I can demonstrate to you why they do not have a coherence either with the ancient logic that invented them, nor with the modern world.
So what is your (less than) literal understanding of these ideas?
I spelled them out with a biopsychological interpretation, which, according to you , is also meaningless.
Salvation for me amounts to being saved from myself; I have no worse enemy.
No I said your particular archetypal interpretation was meaningless to most - i.e. those that had never heard of your archetypes.
But what I am interested in is what does the Crucifixion mean? How is that salvation?
Why does go need to kill himself so that humans can be saved?
You have avoided dealing with that, as you have with original sin.
So, either, in terms of ‘god’, or in terms of the priests who invented these ideas - what do they mean?