All sinned in Adam and All killed the Son of God

[simpleas]

Should the discussion go back to the purpose of Adam? And wait until later to examine our existence? Or should we start with our existence which was not at the same time as Adam’s and not at the same time as the Crucifixion. Either way, we may get to the heart of the matter.

What is the real purpose of Adam’s existence? Perhaps one real purpose for a real Adam could be the establishment of a friendship relationship between the Creator and humankind.

The CCC tells us that God made us to know and love him, I’m sure it also explains what Adam’s purpose was too, but I’d need to look it up.

God making us to know and love him is a good example of our existence, and I would say we all need to find our purpose in the world also. What isn’t good is knowing God allowed one human being or two, to decided to break the human/creator relationship.
That isn’t a fair chance for all to know and love God,being of a sinful nature before one has even acknowledged God.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by Gorgias

However, these events have wide-reaching theological import. In the “Fall of Man”, we see humanity’s tendency to reject God and choose things that are contrary to His will.

We see only one/two peoples tendency to sin. No other humans were in existence at the time of the fall of man.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by fhansen

All humanity fell and was corrupted by Adams act. We can read about the results of that corruption or woundedness in our daily newspapers, results flowing from a basic lack of communion with God that man was made for, and that he’s lost without. Adam sort of chose the path of selfishness and autonomy, forsaking whatever level of love he would’ve experienced by virtue of his personal proximity to God in favor of “Something Else”, something bigger, something of his own that perhaps God might deny him so long as God remained the one in authority, the one determining morality for Adam.

That was Adam’s choice, Eve’s choice, but not all of humanity choice. I do wonder why God in his wisdom would allow anothers choice to become everyone’s fate.

 

[simpleas]

The good that we are drawn to is community with God and others. In that vision, the good of one is the good of all.

.
Since we do not live in isolation, our acts and disposition affect others. Sin is never purely personal. It creates a void, so to speak, that affects others. Original siin could be said to be a void in original unity.

We are not culpable specifically for his sin, but it affects others.
The mechanism is a mystery as described by the Church.

We are not culpable specifically for his sin,

But we are in a sense because we are born without the friendship Adam and Eve had first experienced, and then go on to be disobedient, and further on to crucify Jesus :

the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured.

 

[simpleas]

Not sure how I missed it. Sorry about that.

Physically, logically, we were not at the Crucifixion.

When I was little, I was drawn to the crucifix in Church and in homes. All I wanted to do was to remove one thorn from His painful crown.

Thanks.

Yes, when I was young I was frightened a little by the crucifix, I much preferred to see Jesus as the lovely,peaceful welcoming figure in a child’s book, or the pictures of Jesus with the sheep.
Later, I just wanted to take Jesus from the cross, take away the pain of that image.

 

[goout]

But we are in a sense because we are born without the friendship Adam and Eve had first experienced, and then go on to be disobedient, and further on to crucify Jesus :

the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured.

And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

Before you object, remember that sin is what it is because of the magnitude of the good.
If there were no good offered to man, sin would be meaningless. We would all absorb as much of it as possible, to live for today.

Sin affects mankind as a whole because of the radical possibility of unitive love, which is broken by sin.

By analogy, if a woman offers me complete and undying love, and I mess it up with some offense, it not only affects me but also my family, community, etc…because the radically good possibilities that are offered through that relationship are broken. That affects everyone.
And I am sorry to be repeating myself.

 

[simpleas]

Before you object, remember that sin is what it is because of the magnitude of the good.
If there were no good offered to man, sin would be meaningless. We would all absorb as much of it as possible, to live for today.

Sin affects mankind as a whole because of the radical possibility of unitive love, which is broken by sin.

By analogy, if a woman offers me complete and undying love, and I mess it up with some offense, it not only affects me but also my family, community, etc…because the radically good possibilities that are offered through that relationship are broken. That affects everyone.
And I am sorry to be repeating myself.

I don’t think there’s anyone who has repeated their self as much as I have on these forums…

I get what you say using the analogy.

 

[grannymh]

But we are in a sense because we are born without the friendship Adam and Eve had first experienced, and then go on to be disobedient, and further on to crucify Jesus :

the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured.

Is there a way we can start with the existence of God and what He intended for humankind? Genesis 1:28?

Is there a way we can start with the idea that God can never be two? Genesis 2:16?

Is there a way we can separate Adam’s action so that it stands solely on its own. Genesis 3:11?

Also, I am too dumb in the Philosophy Forum to figure out what is meant by "the Church has never forgotten that “sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured.”

As far as I can tell in the first three fascinating chapters of Genesis, Adam is not referred to as “sinners” in the plural. Genesis 3:9-11

I would also like to refer to Adam’s State of Original Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace. It is a more accurate description of the State of Adam’s nature.

 

[simpleas]

Is there a way we can start with the existence of God and what He intended for humankind? Genesis 1:28?

Is there a way we can start with the idea that God can never be two? Genesis 2:16?

Is there a way we can separate Adam’s action so that it stands solely on its own. Genesis 3:11?

Also, I am too dumb in the Philosophy Forum to figure out what is meant by "the Church has never forgotten that “sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured.”

As far as I can tell in the first three fascinating chapters of Genesis, Adam is not referred to as “sinners” in the plural. Genesis 3:9-11

I had made a start in post # 21.

the quote : the Church has never forgotten that “sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured.”

can be found in post #16.

I suppose there is much help trying to be given from posters to add to this discussion, but it’s a two way question/discussion that relates to Adam and Jesus, not solely Adam, and our part in both theories.

 

[goout]

I had made a start in post # 21.

the quote : the Church has never forgotten that “sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured.”

can be found in post #16.

I suppose there is much help trying to be given from posters to add to this discussion, but it’s a two way question/discussion that relates to Adam and Jesus, not solely Adam, and our part in both theories.

Communion of Saints. Try seeing this issue through that lens.
The Communion of Saints is a good thing, and is a good thing that we work towards. The depths and effects of sin are only apparent in relation to the good.

In the Communion of Saints we are one people.
If you had a son and he plunged into some darkness, don’t you share that darkness? Do you go on as if his darkness has no effect on you? No. Only a disconnected parent goes unaffected by the misfortune of a child. The wound of the child is the wound of the parent, and vice versa.

If the family member has no sense of his unity with his family, the radical effects of sin are not apparent.

In fact the most radical love of all is Christ’s, who desires to not only feel and empathize with misery, but takes that curse upon himself. He becomes it, in unity with his people. In light of that, can you see how radically we are called to be one with each other, and how Adam’s sin has effects?

 

[fhansen]

That was Adam’s choice, Eve’s choice, but not all of humanity choice. I do wonder why God in his wisdom would allow anothers choice to become everyone’s fate.

Yes, I understand. But He did in any case, unless we’re to think that it’s normal for man to commit acts that make the rest of nature seem tame by comparison. The lesson is that freedom, in the sense of being totally free from communion with and obedience to God, is more freedom than is good for us. True communion guarantees sinlessness, even if that won’t be fully realized until heaven. Anyway, IMO God deemed it worthwhile that the rest of humanity should learn that lesson as well, as we’re willing, to learn experientially of our limitations and of our need for Him.

 

[grannymh]

The CCC tells us that God made us to know and love him, I’m sure it also explains what Adam’s purpose was too, but I’d need to look it up.

God making us to know and love him is a good example of our existence, and I would say we all need to find our purpose in the world also. What isn’t good is knowing God allowed one human being or two, to decided to break the human/creator relationship.
That isn’t a fair chance for all to know and love God,being of a sinful nature before one has even acknowledged God.

It is Genesis 1:27 which describes the unique human nature which is an unification of both the material world and the spiritual world. This human nature has the capability to accept God and His commandments or to reject God and His commandments.

It is Genesis 2:15-17 which describes the basic fundamental commandment in the first three truth-filled chapters of Genesis. What readers need to know is that it is impossible for two almighty primary gods to exist at the same time. Therefore, Adam has to live in free submission (obedience) to his Divine Creator.

The only way that current humans can be confident that they are destined to share in God’s life, Genesis 1:27, is that all humans are descended from one person and his spouse. This means that all humans have the capability to accept or reject John 3:16-17. Therefore, all humans have a fair chance to know and love God.

Eve and Adam, as the first human parents, transmit their wounded nature to their children who then transmit this fallen nature to their children… It may be hard to imagine; but, wounded human nature still has the capability to know and love God. Original Sin did not take away human’s inherent intellective free choice.

To get a better understanding of Original Sin, one needs to study the flip side of Genesis 2:15-17, especially verse 17. Adam is the original human on planet earth and we learn that it is he who makes the decision which will affect his descendants. Genesis 3:11. Personally, I find it odd that some, not all, Catholics fail to see the Divinity of Jesus in the awesome chapter 3 of Genesis. Hopefully, they will eventually understand John 3:16-17

Thank you all for your patience. Now, you know why I prefer Sacred Scripture.

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

That was Adam’s choice, Eve’s choice, but not all of humanity choice. I do wonder why God in his wisdom would allow anothers choice to become everyone’s fate.

Yes. Adam had a choice to live in submission to his Divine Creator or not live in submission.

What we need to remember is that Adam is the first living human being on planet earth. Of all the visible creatures mentioned in the first essential chapter of Genesis, Adam is the only creature who is able to know and love his Creator. Adam’s nature would be transmitted to his descendants as is proper in the material world. When Eve became the first fully complete female, she was in the State of Original Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace.

God would allow the other humans who would descend from Adam and his spouse to have their same State of Original Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace. However, we need to keep in mind that “other humans” were not a crowd in the Garden of Eden at the beginning of human history.

At the beginning of human history, we find that only one Adam who, with his spouse, has the capability of transmitting his own “state.” One Adam could only transmit the one state of his nature.

Adam’s nature was extremely different from the other creatures on planet earth. He was given the capability to live in joy eternal with his Divine Creator. Because of all the methods which can be used in regard to the history of humankind, we need to be precise and use the proper terminology for Adam’s nature. Adam’s nature began in the State of Original Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace.

Simpleas,
Is the above o.k.? Or do you have concerns or questions regarding the above information?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

However, these events have wide-reaching theological import. In the “Fall of Man”, we see humanity’s tendency to reject God and choose things that are contrary to His will.

We see only one/two peoples tendency to sin. No other humans were in existence at the time of the fall of man.

“through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned” – Romans 5:12

“death came through a human being” – 1 Cor 15:21

The impact of the Fall of Man is felt in its consequences and in the actions of all humanity.

 

[Vonsalza]

A child born in poverty didn’t “do so” by virtue of their own choice. The poverty experienced by the child was the “doing” of those that came before it.

Nonetheless, the child must deal with it. In a similar way, we must deal with our human state.

 

[simpleas]

Communion of Saints. Try seeing this issue through that lens.
The Communion of Saints is a good thing, and is a good thing that we work towards. The depths and effects of sin are only apparent in relation to the good.

In the Communion of Saints we are one people.
If you had a son and he plunged into some darkness, don’t you share that darkness? Do you go on as if his darkness has no effect on you? No. Only a disconnected parent goes unaffected by the misfortune of a child. The wound of the child is the wound of the parent, and vice versa.

If the family member has no sense of his unity with his family, the radical effects of sin are not apparent.

In fact the most radical love of all is Christ’s, who desires to not only feel and empathize with misery, but takes that curse upon himself. He becomes it, in unity with his people. In light of that, can you see how radically we are called to be one with each other, and how Adam’s sin has effects?

I’m afraid you are going off in another direction to the O.P.

My thoughts are not on the same level as yours.

Thanks.

 

[simpleas]

Yes, I understand. But He did in any case, unless we’re to think that it’s normal for man to commit acts that make the rest of nature seem tame by comparison. The lesson is that freedom, in the sense of being totally free from communion with and obedience to God, is more freedom than is good for us. True communion guarantees sinlessness, even if that won’t be fully realized until heaven. Anyway, IMO God deemed it worthwhile that the rest of humanity should learn that lesson as well, as we’re willing, to learn experientially of our limitations and of our need for Him.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[simpleas]

Yes. Adam had a choice to live in submission to his Divine Creator or not live in submission.

What we need to remember is that Adam is the first living human being on planet earth. Of all the visible creatures mentioned in the first essential chapter of Genesis, Adam is the only creature who is able to know and love his Creator. Adam’s nature would be transmitted to his descendants as is proper in the material world. When Eve became the first fully complete female, she was in the State of Original Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace.

God would allow the other humans who would descend from Adam and his spouse to have their same State of Original Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace. However, we need to keep in mind that “other humans” were not a crowd in the Garden of Eden at the beginning of human history.

At the beginning of human history, we find that only one Adam who, with his spouse, has the capability of transmitting his own “state.” One Adam could only transmit the one state of his nature.

Adam’s nature was extremely different from the other creatures on planet earth. He was given the capability to live in joy eternal with his Divine Creator. Because of all the methods which can be used in regard to the history of humankind, we need to be precise and use the proper terminology for Adam’s nature. Adam’s nature began in the State of Original Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace.

Simpleas,
Is the above o.k.? Or do you have concerns or questions regarding the above information?

Thanks.

While I accept we inherit the material human nature from the first parents, we don’t inherit his or her soul, we may be a family of humans but we each have a different soul.

But the soul is another topic that I have trouble with so best leave it there.

 

[simpleas]

So what I’m hearing is we didn’t literally sin with Adam and Eve, nor did we literally crucify Jesus, but theologically we did.

If how the church teaches, mortal sin being the serious sin, must be an act by the individual then it would stand that none of us sinned with Adam and Eve, nor did we crucify Jesus.

I see some post trying to explain it with examples of how sin affects others, this I know, I know how someone else’s deeds can affect others lives.

 

[fhansen]

So what I’m hearing is we didn’t literally sin with Adam and Eve, nor did we literally crucify Jesus, but theologically we did.

If how the church teaches, mortal sin being the serious sin, must be an act by the individual then it would stand that none of us sinned with Adam and Eve, nor did we crucify Jesus.

I see some post trying to explain it with examples of how sin affects others, this I know, I know how someone else’s deeds can affect others lives.

I think the simple bottom line truth is that lack of communion with God, a state we’re born into (I certainly had no direct knowledge of Him from birth on, let alone love for Him until later in life), spells or equals death for man, which is why it can be said that Adam died on the day he ate of the fruit, and why we lack that life until we come to know and commune with God, and why we can forfeit that life again if we turn away in disobedience afterwards. Man is lost on his own; doesn’t that seem obvious? Man was made for communion with God. Doesn’t it seem obvious that we’re not at that point or state at the beginning of life, even if we might prefer to think we were for some reason?