Childbirth and "The Fall" in the Garden of Eden

[momma_unlimited]

Being pregnant, I've been thinking a lot about childbirth and how it *would have been* in a paradise without sin having entered the world.

I guess, I've been wondering- do you think it would have been a completely orgasmic experience? Noting that the uterus contracts (not painfully, but seemingly with a very strong and lasting constraction) during an orgasm- I wonder if birth was meant to be such (and of course we've all heard stories of women who have had such an experience during birth). I've also been thinking about an idea birth reformer Michael Odent (or maybe it was Sheila Kitzinger?) related that the proper setting for giving birth is the same one as making love, as giving birth is actually the final culmination of lovemaking.

What do you think?

[Ravin]

I think birth is painful because we have big heads. One could argue that eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is what made us the intelligent, big-headed beings we are. Sin, as such, follows from free will and conscious thought, made possible by our big brains. Our big brains make giving birth difficult, and also make for more vulnerable newborns, which take more care to survive than the young of many other species, and are thus more likely to die. Thus, the grief in childbirth can indeed be argued to be due to sinful human nature.

Or just to our big heads.

[Bluegoat]

I have a friend whose head is so big, he is excused from bicycle helmet laws. I wonder if this is a sign that he has a great capacity for sin?


I wonder if there would have been childbirth in the Garden state? Since there was no death, perhaps there would be no need to reproduce. If there would have been, I imagine that there would be no fear involved, or other things that can really make birth more difficult, and that would go a long way to making it less painful.

But I am not convinced the garden was a real physical place, exactly, or that it existed for more than an instant. I suspect that it was not a place in time, in any case.

[momma_unlimited]

I wonder if there would have been childbirth in the Garden state? Since there was no death, perhaps there would be no need to reproduce. If there would have been, I imagine that there would be no fear involved, or other things that can really make birth more difficult, and that would go a long way to making it less painful.

But I am not convinced the garden was a real physical place, exactly, or that it existed for more than an instant. I suspect that it was not a place in time, in any case.

The fact that God said "I will greatly increase your conception" sounds an awful lot as though there would have been conception previously, just perhaps not as much as was now needed to replace the dead.

I agree with the fear part, it certainly adds to pain factors.

I wonder why the trouble was taken to reference rivers (Tigris and Euphrates) if the garden was *only* a metaphysical place. To me it makes sense that it represents both.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by momma_unlimited

The fact that God said "I will greatly increase your conception" sounds an awful lot as though there would have been conception previously, just perhaps not as much as was now needed to replace the dead.

I agree with the fear part, it certainly adds to pain factors.

I wonder why the trouble was taken to reference rivers (Tigris and Euphrates) if the garden was *only* a metaphysical place. To me it makes sense that it represents both.

I think the rivers could have got in there in a few different contexts. Since they were very much life-giving rivers to those who live in that region, the idea that the origin of them comes directly from the Garden of Eden seems to me to be a sign that those life-giving properties were directly created by God.
Or perhaps it's possible that in some way the pattern of the Garden corresponds to the real pattern of the Earth in some way.

I think to imagine that the rivers are literally sourced in the Garden of Eden would be problematic, since that would suggest that if we followed the rivers to there sources, we should find the way to the garden, which would be blocked, and we would not actually be able to find the sources of the rivers at all. But of course that's not the case, it is quite possible to visit the source of either river. And the Gihon river seems to be located in another part of the world entirely.

[momma_unlimited]

If I were God and I didn't want people to find something, I would probably make it unfindable =)

I could see the division of the earth (the theory that the continents were connected as one big land mass) and the flood both changing the surface of the earth somewhat... who knows.

[Nazsmum]

I do think that birth would have taken alot less time!!!! Maybe orgasmic. definitly no pain.

A good question is what was Eve's first birth like??? Did she panic? Did Adam panic? Was an angel there to help them? Did she know just the put the baby on the breast?

I have questions too.

[DahliaRW]

I think about this too. And I think the "pain" of childbirth is more than just labor and delivery. There are a lot of discomforts of being pregnant (morning sickness, aching joints, baby bouncing on bladder, etc).

[pampered_mom]

I don't know what childbirth would have been like, but I'm also not as literal when it comes to Genesis 1-3 as others might be. One of my pet peeves about the story, though is centered in Genesis 3:16 and has been mentioned a bit here - it's this whole bit about "pain." I actually was just writing about this the other day. I don't think that the whole "increase your pain" or "make childbirth painful" take on Genesis 3:16 is an accurate translation.

The short of it being that the word really should have been translated "sorrow" (as the KJV does) rather than "pain". "Sorrow" as in "hard work", "emotional travail", "labor", "worrisomeness", etc. Perhaps this meant that childbirth/labor would have been a great deal less work?

[mamabadger]

It depends on your interpretation of Genesis. According to my church, human beings were originally created as angelic beings, without physical frailties, sickness, or death. After the Fall, not only was sin introduced into their lives, but their lives and capabilities were more limited. We interpret the passage about "putting on the skins of animals" as meaning they were given animal bodies - in other words, the kind of body we have now.
Before the Fall, people would have reproduced by other means, so childbirth issues would not even apply. Neither would questions about pain during labour.

Maybe I am taking your question too literally. If you mean "would childbirth be painless if we lived in a sinless world" or something like that, maybe, in theory. The actual situation in Paradise would not even involve reproduction as we know it.

[Sailor]

Right. I thought there was no .... sex in Eden. At least, according to my Catholic school education. They were innocent in all ways, including reproduction. I thought I read somewhere that, in Hebrew, the word used for Adam doesn't actually have a gender. And there is no change in that word until after they're kicked out of Eden. And then Adam takes on the male gender.

So ... childbirth wouldn't have existed if they didn't have sex and reproduce and if they were genderless in Eden.

It's been awhile since my Catholic school education, though. So, I may be a bit off.

For the record, my mom says childbirth was painless for her. She has really bad period cramps, and she says childbirth was the easiest thing ever. I know two women who said they did have orgasmic childbirth ... so it could be possible now.

[momma_unlimited]

Pampered momma, I rather agree with your interpretation about sorrow. (I originally never mentioned "pain" on purpose, but I do agree with Bluegoat that FEAR adds to pain...

They were innocent in all ways, including reproduction.

What does reproduction have to do with *not being innocent*?

The idea that the garden was no sort of actual place does not make sense to me, if it were such, I'd be sitting here wondering what else is *only* metaphysical/storytelling to illustrate some analogy. Personally I see the physical things of earth to be pictures of non-physical realities made manifest for beings with eyeballs and atoms. Doesn't it takes *less* faith to believe these things are analogies or non-literal? To me life IS magical, laws ARE suspendable, miracles happen, etc...

Us being created in God's image is a sign to me that we have creative powers (such as reproduction...). One of the names for God is El Shaddai, "the many-breasted one", the source of all our needs met, and it makes sense to me that all along, we would have had aspects of our own nature that pointed back to the nature of the one who created us- being able to bring forth a being and supply all its needs as mothers. So,... anyone who thinks there really was a garden, what do you think childbirth would have been like?

[Sailor]

Originally Posted by momma_unlimited

What does reproduction have to do with *not being innocent*?

I just meant that to reproduce, one has to have sex. I don't think anyone in said garden was aware that sex was a possibility. They didn't even know nudity, or didn't know that concept. Which is what I meant by "innocent."

I'm sure there are a lot of different interpretations. I'm just going by my Catholic school lessons, not saying I'm right or wrong. Just repeating what they taught there.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Sailor

I just meant that to reproduce, one has to have sex. I don't think anyone in said garden was aware that sex was a possibility. They didn't even know nudity, or didn't know that concept. Which is what I meant by "innocent."

I'm sure there are a lot of different interpretations. I'm just going by my Catholic school lessons, not saying I'm right or wrong. Just repeating what they taught there.

Sex only becomes non-innocent once we're fallen. If there was sex before, which is, as far as I can tell, debated within most Christian denominations, then it was innocent sex. Just like gluttony would not have appeared before the Fall.

[Sailor]

Yes, the interpretations vary greatly. My grandmother who lives in Poland, and is a Roman Catholic - church daily, confession weekly, lots of chats with the local priest, etc. - used to tell me that the "tree of knowledge" was a metaphor for Adam and Eve having sex. And, them having knowledge of one another, was what led to the fall. But, this could be my grandmother's personal way of scaring me into avoiding sex!

On the other hand, I know Catholics who just interpret it as gaining knowledge in everything, and as there having been no sex or reproduction or a need for such things in Eden. Which is what my Catholic school taught.

And I'm sure there are a hundred different other interpretations in Christian denominations.

It's really interesting, I think, to read all the interpretations.

[Bluegoat]

Within the Roman Catholic Church, the idea that the Fall was caused by sex is pretty much discredited, though it was, as you pointed out, a popular idea even quite recently.

[JessicaS]

I guess I just always saw "knowledge" as "free will" and our loss of innocence was the connotations of that.

Not really "pain in childbirth" but not having God look out for us, that we experience sickness, loss and sorrow.

[holyhelianthus]

This is an interesting thread.

For me if it wasn't painful it wouldn't be orgasmic either. If we don't know pain we don't know ecstasy. Childbirth would just be, I suppose.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by abimommy

I guess I just always saw "knowledge" as "free will" and our loss of innocence was the connotations of that.

Not really "pain in childbirth" but not having God look out for us, that we experience sickness, loss and sorrow.

Although as the story goes, Adam and Eve were only able to fully exercise free will before the Fall.

Once they had actually gone and used their free will against what God had told them, they were hampered by the effects of that choice, unable to always control themselves fully or see clearly.

[EarthMamaToBe]

Plenty of people give birth painlessly now...