Sunday cartoon: Calvin & Hobbes on Original Sin

by Thomas Peters on March 14th, 2010

Full-size here.

Share on Facebook | Tweet this | Email Email | RSS

Comments


11 Comments
Reginald
March 16, 2010

Indeed, we are “quick studies”, but that is not where Original Sin lies.

As “original sin” it is a sin “of origin”, i.e. it is a sin which has been transmitted from Adam to all his descendants (excepting Christ and Mary) by propagation.

We do not learn Original Sin, it is NOT a personal sin. Rather, we are conceived with Original Sin, that is, we are conceived outside the state of grace.
From this original state of deprivation, we then quickly fall to actual sins by which we merit eternal punishment.
Or, by God’s grace (usually given in Sacramental Baptism) we are restored to the state of grace and may (with great effort and much divine assistance) persevere in grace and merit eternal life.

So, Calvin is correct–we come into the world sinful (not as having committed actual sin, but as being conceived outside the state of grace).
Hobbes is wrong–we don’t simply imitate sinfulness, our very nature is corrupted by it from our conception.

@Brother Rolf: I don’t know which way you think the Church is leaning, but do be sure that she has entirely committed herself to the doctrine of Original Sin, transmitted through propagation from parent to child, by which we are conceived outside of the state of grace. It IS NOT a matter of mere imitation.

@Gramma Alice: You are correct, the Church has always insisted that children (before the age of reason) cannot sin. Still, without the grace of God (which is usually given through sacramental baptism) they cannot be saved. Nevertheless, we can be certain that a child who dies before baptism will not suffer the punishments of hell (they will either go to limbo or, as many today think, God will give miraculously them the grace of salvation).

noel
March 15, 2010

yeah quik studies….something product of mind and so they come up on that idea

Tom
March 15, 2010

It’s ironic that someone named Calvin would suggest that possiblity of origianl sin.
Or does he mean that babies are totally depraved?

Bruce
March 15, 2010

And now our “modern times” take on Calvin & Hobbes:

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/calvin_and_hobbes_on_ritalin.gif

It wouldn’t be so sad if it weren’t so true. Those worshiping at the altar of modernity have destroyed our children’s childhoods in the name of “liberty”, “equality”, and “science”. Those include, especially, the baby boom generation, which is a generation I shall not miss.

Gramma Alice
March 15, 2010

Neuroscience shows us that babies come into the world with undeveloped brains incapable of thinking as adults do or of distinguishing between self and others. They have needs, not wants. One of the challenges of parenthood is recognizing when wants appear and responding appropriately. A baby whose needs are not met is “spoiled” as much as a child whose wants are unwisely indulged but in a different way.

I’m having a senior moment and can’t think of the right words but I know that the church has always understood the development of small children and not laid expectations of which they are not capable on them.

The Gong
March 14, 2010

It is not animals who do not understand original sin.

Brother Rolf
March 14, 2010

I think the Church is leaning this way.

TeaPot562
March 14, 2010

Babies come into the world thinking that it revolves around them. Translated into vice v. virtue, this would be “selfish”. As they grow older they discover that others in their family also have wants and needs. At some point (age 2? perhaps 3?) they often start testing imposed limits to see if they can get their own way. They may or may not mostly grow past the self-centered stage. The tendency to prefer one’s own way even after one becomes aware of the needs of others might be (we all display this characteristic at one time or another!) may be considered a manifestation of original sin.
TeaPot562

Dan
March 14, 2010

quick learners indeed…we are.

Paul List
March 14, 2010

“Quick studies” to be sure, and unfortunately they learn too much about sinfulness from the parents.
The last line speaks volumes. Speak to any atheist/evolutionist/apeman about nearly anything suggesting the higher nature of humanity and the concept of the human soul being more than an animating life force similar to what frogs, worms or bacteria might have, and you can expect to be insulted. When people think they are only abstract variations on the ‘animal theme’, they have the bad habit of behaving like animals…….and worse…..
Every problem of our troubled world begins with the basic deception that mankind is just another species under the genus ‘Animal’. Until humanity is willing to wake up and become ‘responsible’ for our position in the Universe we can expect to be the bane of Creation. But then we’d have to stop playing ‘God’ and the Richard Dawkins type academics wouldn’t wield the power and celebrity they currently enjoy so very much by leading others into the void of death, and if you think misery loves company, Death is insatiable!

Rickson
March 14, 2010

To tell you the truth, I didn’t understand. :-(