Adam and Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter Historicity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Barbkw said:
Sin is a personal decision, a departure from the grace of God. Adam and Eve “felt” their closeness with God. When they sinned they “felt” naked and hid themselves. It changed them emotionally, physically and spiritually.

Their sin, that original disobedience (where they wished to be their own gods and blamed God for their mistakes) broke the connection with the Holy Spirit.

Baptism with water, as Jesus instructed, reconnects souls to the “fire” of the Holy Spirit. Baptism forgives the original sin of our original parents. We die to our old self and take on the life of Christ. That connection remains a daily personal choice. No different now for us, than it was for Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
Adam’s sin wasn’t my personal decision. Mine was. Hence, the fatal problem with the original sin argument.
 
Historicity said:
1st bold, If this omnipotent God’s goals were originally intended for his will and his will only, why did he create a creature that he knew (omniscient) would ‘sin’ against him, contradicting his will?
And why would he let petty human beings change the course of his master, divine, cosmological plan?

2nd bold, I hope that’s not actually accepted as true that the practice of hope and charity are of theological or divine origin and a person that is not baptized, or not knowledgeable to the practice of baptism doesn’t use those virtues. Many non-baptized, non-religious people most certainly have hope and are quite charitable in their everyday life. You can’t honestly believe only people that have been baptized exercise these “virtues”.
Click to expand...
In street language, your first bold means that Adam and Eve naturally desired God as the highest good possible. Our wounded nature also desires God as the highest good possible; however, we often choose a lesser good like smoking.

Your second bold uses the word theological. Theo refers to God. Thus those three virtues, practiced by anyone, normally are related to God. Agnostics can hope that there is a God. People, like my daughter who doesn’t believe in organized religion, can have faith that God exists. Charity is both love of God and love of others.

Being baptized is having God’s grace or life within our being. Obviously, this is a tremendous help. One should never underestimate the power of God to touch anyone’s soul.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
 
Windfish said:
I think you are off to the wrong start when you use words like “fundamentalist” uncritically. A fundamentalist is someone who subscribes to the Protestant movement that was started in America several decades ago. The movement was a reaction to liberal Protestantism at the time that was eschewing Christian beliefs like the Virgin Birth. The fundamentalists outlined what they called “fundamental beliefs” to which Christians in their movement must adhere. Now, if you look at this outline, Catholics affirm all of them, and more. So, in that sense, were fundamentalist.

As the Church teaches, there was some event of disobedience by our first parents, and this act of sin towards God is what we call Original Sin. It separated us from Him and resulted in our fallen natures.
Click to expand...
I understand the real fundamentalist meaning, I just figured it would be easier to plug it into here. I probably should have used literalism or something else.
 
Historicity said:
I understand the real fundamentalist meaning, I just figured it would be easier to plug it into here. I probably should have used literalism or something else.
Click to expand...
Literalism would not have worked, either. The Bible is not some monolithic book - it is, in fact, many books written by different authors spanning different genres. Some books are non-literal and others are literal. The Bible also cannot be isolated from the fullness of Christian Revelation found in the Catholic Church. To separate the Bible and the Church will lead one into error and result thousands of different interpretations and confusion.

All this to say, do not be afraid to be use more precision.
 
Historicity said:
Bolded the great examples of the certain things I’ve been subtly referring to. This house of sand that you’re using to explain this, I think can also be explained by the simple fallacies of tradition within the church. People see some of these traditional teachings that are now doctrines and fail to recognize how fallible they are and due to the sad fact that people see these long standing traditions (under the guise of doctrine) and since the passage of time only perpetuates traditions in most cases, many are mislead in their beliefs.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church holds fast to 2,000 year old Apostolic Tradition and to the Apostolic understanding of Sacred Scripture. Papal authority and the Magisterium don’t “make up” these traditions.

Doctrines, like the Canon of Scripture, were established to combat “heretical thought, dissent, deviation, unorthodoxy, profanation, sacrilege, heterodoxy …”

For a list of various heresies throughout the ages:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heresies_in_Catholicism
 
ckempston said:
Adam’s sin wasn’t my personal decision. Mine was. Hence, the fatal problem with the original sin argument.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand Original Sin.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned
(Rom. 5:12).

Adam’s sin is not and was never ours. But it did result in consequences on our nature, as Paul says above. If an innocent child sees pornography for the first time, a part of his innocence has been lost, even if he later repents and is forgiven. Although he was forgiven, there are temporal effects to his nature. So, from our first parents, there was some sin that has separated us from God, as Paul says.
 
Windfish said:
Literalism would not have worked, either. The Bible is not some monolithic book - it is, in fact, many books written by different authors spanning different genres. Some books are non-literal and others are literal. The Bible also cannot be isolated from the fullness of Christian Revelation found in the Catholic Church. To separate the Bible and the Church will lead one into error and result thousands of different interpretations and confusion.

All this to say, do not be afraid to be use more precision.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, how about just straight up asking people what they actually believed in regards to the specific story of Adam and Eve?
 
ckempston said:
Adam’s sin wasn’t my personal decision. Mine was. Hence, the fatal problem with the original sin argument.
Click to expand...
You don’t understand.

Adam and Eve lived away from a direct relationship with God because of their sins. They didn’t want to be close to God. They wanted to be their own gods.

They raised children with that same “unholy” attitude. Their child experienced jealousy and rage and he committed murder.

That child propogated more sin into the world. Each generation, as they progressed away from an attachment to the Holy, they fell deeper into their own wickedness and self possession.

It’s no different today. Look at our own culture. At the family’s and the children who reject God and wish to become their own god. Many of them fall into the “culture of death”.
 
Historicity said:
Fair enough, how about just straight up asking people what they actually believed in regards to the specific story of Adam and Eve?
Click to expand...
We believe as the Church teaches - some of what the Church teaches has already been posted above.

Probably more to your point, we acknowledge that there is scant or no scientific evidence which directly locates this event (except for, possibly, the indirect evidence which does point to humans having descended from two parents), but our body of evidence includes more than just what science can tell us. In any case, the Fall has theological import and truth and was not intended to be historical account.

Original Sin, I think, is one of the reasons why Christianity gets it right. We are fallen, and we are in need of grace - no other belief system has the courage to admit as much about human nature. We are good, to be sure, but fallen - very frail and weak to temptation in the face of disordered desires like greed and power. Unfortunately, this is the history of humanity, and it will not change, and the Cross and Resurrection are our only hope.
 
Barbkw said:
You don’t understand.

Adam and Eve lived away from a direct relationship with God because of their sins. They didn’t want to be close to God. They wanted to be their own gods.

They raised children with that same “unholy” attitude. Their child experienced jealousy and rage and he committed murder.

That child propogated more sin into the world. Each generation, as they progressed away from an attachment to the Holy, they fell deeper into their own wickedness and self possession.

It’s no different today. Look at our own culture. At the family’s and the children who reject God and wish to become their own god. Many of them fall into the “culture of death”.
Click to expand...
lol, I don’t think you have it right, either. 😛 The Church teaches that the Fall resulted in changed human nature and has nothing to do with how Adam and Eve raised their children.
 
Windfish said:
lol, I don’t think you have it right, either. 😛 The Church teaches that the Fall resulted in changed human nature and has nothing to do with how Adam and Eve raised their children.
Click to expand...
You can’t see the connection?

An unholy parent, raising children. Generation after generation.
 
Windfish said:
Original Sin, I think, is one of the reasons why Christianity gets it right. We are fallen, and we are in** need of grace** - no other belief system has the courage to admit as much about human nature. We are good, to be sure, but fallen - very frail and weak to temptation in the face of disordered desires like greed and power. Unfortunately, this is the history of humanity, and it will not change, and the Cross and Resurrection are our only hope.
Click to expand...
Please explain what you really mean by fallen and in need of grace?
How about all of the other humans that existed before Christian baptism practices, are they simply doomed to live a life without this ‘grace’?
 
We all carry the potentially fatal Original Sin. By accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and by baptism and the Holy Spirit, we can be born again. All of us will see God, Christian and non-Christian.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
We all carry the potentially fatal Original Sin. By accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and by baptism and the Holy Spirit, we can be born again. All of us will see God, Christian and non-Christian.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Potentially fatal?
Original Sin?
Born again?
All I see is buzzwords and no concrete explanation.
 
Historicity said:
Please explain what you really mean by fallen and in need of grace?
How about all of the other humans that existed before Christian baptism practices, are they simply doomed to live a life without this ‘grace’?
Click to expand...
I think I already explained what “fallen” means. It is human frailty, our capacity and tendency to err. It has captivated thinkers since the dawn of time, Why do we fall short from the good? Grace is the gratuitous goodness and love that God extends to us. It’s what helps us to follow in the footsteps of Christ, providing we respond to it.

What is with the non-sequitur of baptism?

It might be a good idea to educate yourself of the “other side” before you disbelieve it or argue against it.
 
Historicity said:
Potentially fatal?
Original Sin?
Born again?
All I see is buzzwords and no concrete explanation.
Click to expand...
Well, Original Sin was already explored in this thread. I am not sure why are you confused. But you might want to take my advice - we assume that we are talking with somebody already familiar with the Faith. And if you are not familiar with it, I suggest becoming familiar with it before you disbelieve or argue against it.
 
Windfish said:
Well, Original Sin was already explored in this thread. I am not sure why are you confused. But you might want to take my advice - we assume that we are talking with somebody already familiar with the Faith. And if you are not familiar with it, I suggest becoming familiar with it before you disbelieve or argue against it.
Click to expand...
Sorry if it seems like I’m explicitly arguing against these things, I’m really just trying to find a more well-rounded explanation.
 
Historicity said:
Sorry if it seems like I’m explicitly arguing against these things, I’m really just trying to find a more well-rounded explanation.
Click to expand...
That’s very difficult to find. Most of us only post here on our spare time, and I have noticed lately, that we have less and less of it to spare! There are deep and rich historical, philosophical, and theological proofs/explanations for all that we talk about, and we could only ever touch the very tip of it all.

Good luck with whatever you are looking for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top