One theological question I find often gets overlooked is how we are to understand sin in the light of biology. Knowing, as we do, that we share many behavioral tendencies with our animal brethren, how can we present a sound case for the reality of sin?
For instance, acts of aggression, such as bullying, closely mirror the instinctual establishment of a “pecking order” in many animal species. Or take the inclination towards lust and infidelity that is now seen as a byproduct of an evolutionary drive to spread one’s genes. How do we hold one another responsible for these behaviors if they are the product, not of a fall from grace, but of our very origins?
God question and good points.
There is a way to look at all this in terms that fit your wondering. Basically, it is more about awarenesss thatn biology, but the capacity for awareness goes with biology, so to speak. So while the story, very superficially, deals with what appears to be a “fall,” in
much greater likelyhood it is a symbolization of the fulcrum of awareness that was tipped on when we, as a race, became able to separate ourselves psychologically from our bodies and the world. We gained identity, somewhat in the way that we call 7 the “age of reason.” That means we are able to make distinctions that animals are considered not to be able to make.
But this calls for a ceratin mode of awareness, which is the ability to say “that’s not me; this is me.” And the feelingof self is then withdrawn from the wolrd and becomes associated with the locus and mind of the body of the perceiver. Thsi way of seeing is called "subject/object awareness. It depends on the ability to see contrast, difference, and opposition. It is not reactive in the same way that instinct is. It has more dimensions and is value and priority based, survival still being first. But in adition to basic drives, there are greater possibilities inherent in it.
The price of that awareness is the loss of the feeling of unity with what surrounds you. It’s “me against the world.” but also inherent in that awareness is the ability to step outside itself and see reflexively. It is the least used talent we have. At its best, one can actually stop the incessant narative that makes up what is the construct of person. The identification, or investment of the feeling of self with the construct is “the knowledge of good and evil,” or difference. Stopping that nartrrative experientially demonstrates that ther is something behind the “normal” kind of awareness we experience. It is pure awareness, unqualified, unmitigated, and without other attributes than being.
All of that is kind of common knowledge in some circles and philosophies, but has become heavily symbolized, almost to the point of uselessnes, in some paradigms. but while this is very simplistically put forth here as a scetch, it points to something of exceptional an foundational importance in understanding human nature. So in other words, I’m saying that you are on the right scent.
The post above states what must be done, but while asserting the end, includes no technique. And that is the part that gets couded and tends to go awry.
