An Original-Sin conundrum

[fhansen]

What was Christ’s real purpose in showing up on planet earth?

It cannot be to absolve mankind of “original sin.” because that concept was not invented until centuries after Christ’s death, by Augustine.

The Jews to whom Christ preached had no concept of original sin. In fact, the Genesis tale which laid its foundation only became part of Jewish lore after it was introduced by two separate scribes returning from the Babylonian captivity, where they picked up separate versions of the Genesis tale from the Babylonians, who’d gotten them from some Greeks. The Captivity ended only a few centuries B.C.

It makes little sense, to me anyway, that Christ’s purpose was to absolve mankind of a pseudo-sin which no human had never heard of. By my reading, the three useful N.T. books make no mention of original sin. What was Christ’s purpose, really?

Christ’s purpose was to convict humankind of sin-if they weren’t convicted already-and then demonstrate God’s love by His sacrificial act. Human self-righteousness, the ultimate cause of all sin, killed Jesus-there was no other reason for doing so- which is why scripture tells us in more than one place that He and the Father were hated without reason.

And this gets to the heart of OS. Where does evil come from? Why is it that man might hate God-the source of all goodness, when he encounters Him? Why did, if the Catholic Catechism is correct, faith and trust die in man’s heart at some point? Man is said to be in the unnatural situation in this world of being out of communion with God. Faith, let alone hope and love, are said to be missing-virtues we’re born without-and this is something we would all probably agree to. This is the condition our faith means to describe by the term “lost”. To be separated from God is sin-because this constitutes an injustice, a harmful one for man-and sin continues to separate us from God. And the Catechism teaches that man actually, consciously or not, prefers things this way-that he wants to be his own god, apart from God.

In any case Jesus came to reconcile this injustice, to show not only that God exists but that man was wrong about God-that God always has mans best interest at heart-and that man is the cause of his own strife and misery and he needs to know just how much he needs God in order to have true peace and happiness and life and have it abundantly.

 

[grannymh]

Original Sin was the free will action by an intelligent Adam. In that sin, Adam scorned his Creator. Catholic teaching is that the whole human race is in the first human being, Adam, as one body of one man. Adam received original holiness and justice for all human nature to come. This would be due to the unity of the human species as founded by two, real, sole parents. However, Adam chose not to live in free submission to God. Adam disobeyed God.

Adam freely yielded to the temptation of Satan. Preferring himself over and against God, Adam scorned his Creator. In that Original Sin, Adam broke the bonds of friendship with God, not only for himself but also for all his descendants.

Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is humanity’s Redeemer. By the unity of the human species, all of us were* implicated* in Adam’s disobedience. Through Jesus’ obedience unto death on a cross, all of us are implicated in Christ’s supreme act of reconciliation.

Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin which is a contracted state transmitted by propagation. Nonetheless, the consequences of Original Sin remain.

Since Christ died for all, and since all are called to the same destiny of sharing in God’s life through knowledge and love, Catholicism teaches that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being partakers in Christ’s salvific mission. The ways this is done is known by God. We should never underestimate God’s power to touch individual souls nor should we underestimate an individual soul’s power to respond to God’s love and mercy.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16-17

 

[greylorn]

Christ’s purpose was to convict humankind of sin-if they weren’t convicted already-and then demonstrate God’s love by His sacrificial act. Human self-righteousness, the ultimate cause of all sin, killed Jesus-there was no other reason for doing so- which is why scripture tells us in more than one place that He and the Father were hated without reason.

And this gets to the heart of OS. Where does evil come from? Why is it that man might hate God-the source of all goodness, when he encounters Him? Why did, if the Catholic Catechism is correct, faith and trust die in man’s heart at some point? Man is said to be in the unnatural situation in this world of being out of communion with God. Faith, let alone hope and love, are said to be missing-virtues we’re born without-and this is something we would all probably agree to. This is the condition our faith means to describe by the term “lost”. To be separated from God is sin-because this constitutes an injustice, a harmful one for man-and sin continues to separate us from God. And the Catechism teaches that man actually, consciously or not, prefers things this way-that he wants to be his own god, apart from God.

In any case Jesus came to reconcile this injustice, to show not only that God exists but that man was wrong about God-that God always has mans best interest at heart-and that man is the cause of his own strife and misery and he needs to know just how much he needs God in order to have true peace and happiness and life and have it abundantly.

Yes, of course. That explains why the church supposedly founded by Christ subsequently founded the Inquisition.

There has long been a disparity between what religions teach, and how they actually behave. Christ’s manifestation has changed no aspect of human nature that I can determine. Free enterprise and capitalism has done more to better mankind’s lot than all the religions ever invented.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, of course. That explains why the church supposedly founded by Christ subsequently founded the Inquisition.

There has long been a disparity between what religions teach, and how they actually behave. Christ’s manifestation has changed no aspect of human nature that I can determine. Free enterprise and capitalism has done more to better mankind’s lot than all the religions ever invented.

Tell that to all the malnourished and starving people in the world who are the victims of human selfishness and greed manifested in the law of the jungle which dominates international trade…

 

[fhansen]

Yes, of course. That explains why the church supposedly founded by Christ subsequently founded the Inquisition.

There has long been a disparity between what religions teach, and how they actually behave.

Yes, of course, according to the doctrine of original sin humans will behave like, well, humans, rationalizing their own agenda rather than heeding their own gospel. But it’s the ideals of the gospel anyway that are important-and that some are little by little living up to while others sit and complain about it not being enough-soon enough.

Christ’s manifestation has changed no aspect of human nature that I can determine. Free enterprise and capitalism has done more to better mankind’s lot than all the religions ever invented.

Don’t think so. Altruism became an authentic human value, hours of giving, giving, giving of volunteer work, charity and hospitals and schools and orphanages and universities and strides in science and humanities and pursuits of excellence in general-all due to an ideal given via the Church.

 

[greylorn]

Original Sin was the free will action by an intelligent Adam. In that sin, Adam scorned his Creator. Catholic teaching is that the whole human race is in the first human being, Adam, as one body of one man. Adam received original holiness and justice for all human nature to come. This would be due to the unity of the human species as founded by two, real, sole parents. However, Adam chose not to live in free submission to God. Adam disobeyed God.

Adam freely yielded to the temptation of Satan. Preferring himself over and against God, Adam scorned his Creator. In that Original Sin, Adam broke the bonds of friendship with God, not only for himself but also for all his descendants.

Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is humanity’s Redeemer. By the unity of the human species, all of us were* implicated* in Adam’s disobedience. Through Jesus’ obedience unto death on a cross, all of us are implicated in Christ’s supreme act of reconciliation.

Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin which is a contracted state transmitted by propagation. Nonetheless, the consequences of Original Sin remain.

Since Christ died for all, and since all are called to the same destiny of sharing in God’s life through knowledge and love, Catholicism teaches that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being partakers in Christ’s salvific mission. The ways this is done is known by God. We should never underestimate God’s power to touch individual souls nor should we underestimate an individual soul’s power to respond to God’s love and mercy.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16-17

Granny,
Last I heard, the Church had come to grips with certain realities uncovered by science. For example, it no longer regards earth as the center of the solar system, much less the entire universe. It has also formally accepted the facts of evolution, which indicate that “Adam and Eve,” the two first humans, never existed. Humans evolved gradually from lesser animals, most recently, primates. Apes. There were millions of them, all gradually getting a little bit smarter, about 1/1000th I.Q. tick per generation, on average, as their brains got larger.

The Adam and Eve story is a myth, made-up nonsense like Santa Claus. Intelligent people do not take it seriously. In the light of all the knowledge currently available about the truth of God’s Created Universe, how can anyone with a three-digit I.Q. believe that God came down, picked up a pair of Neanderthals from their comfy caves in Europe, dropped them in a lovely garden in prehistoric Iraq, named them Adam and Eve, gave them each a full body shave, and condemned their entire progeny because Eve got conned by a snake, and Adam by a two-legged snake. If they were that stupid, the only one to blame would be God, for expecting a pair of idiots to follow one simple order.

Let’s pretend for a moment that we are on a philosophy forum, where critical thinking is valued at least as much as medieval dogma. Taking the A & E story at face value for the sake of argument, ask this:

Knowing everything, God would know that he had created Adam and Eve as very stupid, primitive beings who would never follow his simple order to not eat from a certain tree. He knew that He would get annoyed at their failure instead of taking any personal responsibility for the limited intelligence He gave them, and that He would kick them out of the garden and visit the curse of Original Sin upon their entire progeny until the end of humankind, and that He would be dealing with this nonsense, every bit of which He could have avoided, until the end of humankind.

You couldn’t sell that goofy plot to the worst TV soap opera.

You know that I believe in a Creator. You may know that my understanding of God is of an entity with finite intelligence, not omniscience. Although IMO God’s intelligence is finite, it is also extremely high, beyond the ability of any human to fathom. I refuse to believe that the Creator of the Universe could be as inept as implied by the Genesis creation myths.

Kindly activate your mind and come back with something other than rote dogma. This is a philosophy forum, remember.

 

[tonyrey]

Granny,
Last I heard, the Church had come to grips with certain realities uncovered by science. For example, it no longer regards earth as the center of the solar system, much less the entire universe. It has also formally accepted the facts of evolution, which indicate that “Adam and Eve,” the two first humans, never existed. Humans evolved gradually from lesser animals, most recently, primates. Apes. There were millions of them, all gradually getting a little bit smarter, about 1/1000th I.Q. tick per generation, on average, as their brains got larger.

The Adam and Eve story is a myth, made-up nonsense like Santa Claus. Intelligent people do not take it seriously. In the light of all the knowledge currently available about the truth of God’s Created Universe, how can anyone with a three-digit I.Q. believe that God came down, picked up a pair of Neanderthals from their comfy caves in Europe, dropped them in a lovely garden in prehistoric Iraq, named them Adam and Eve, gave them each a full body shave, and condemned their entire progeny because Eve got conned by a snake, and Adam by a two-legged snake. If they were that stupid, the only one to blame would be God, for expecting a pair of idiots to follow one simple order.

Let’s pretend for a moment that we are on a philosophy forum, where critical thinking is valued at least as much as medieval dogma. Taking the A & E story at face value for the sake of argument, ask this:

Knowing everything, God would know that he had created Adam and Eve as very stupid, primitive beings who would never follow his simple order to not eat from a certain tree. He knew that He would get annoyed at their failure instead of taking any personal responsibility for the limited intelligence He gave them, and that He would kick them out of the garden and visit the curse of Original Sin upon their entire progeny until the end of humankind, and that He would be dealing with this nonsense, every bit of which He could have avoided, until the end of humankind.

You couldn’t sell that goofy plot to the worst TV soap opera.

You know that I believe in a Creator. You may know that my understanding of God is of an entity with finite intelligence, not omniscience. Although IMO God’s intelligence is finite, it is also extremely high, beyond the ability of any human to fathom. I refuse to believe that the Creator of the Universe could be as inept as implied by the Genesis creation myths.

Your entertaining version of the myth of Adam and Eve overlooks its fundamental truths. We are not created by purposeless particles but by the Supreme Being who far exceeds us in His wisdom, power and love. At one point in history our ancestors distinguished between good and evil. They chose evil and we have inherited the effects of that choice, a fact for which there is the overwhelming evidence of the bloodstained history of the human race. There is no conundrum there!

 

[grannymh]

Granny,
Last I heard, the Church had come to grips with certain realities uncovered by science. For example, it no longer regards earth as the center of the solar system, much less the entire universe.

No Catholic doctrine involved.

It has also formally accepted the facts of evolution, which indicate that “Adam and Eve,” the two first humans, never existed.

There is no Catholic doctrine which denies Adam and Eve’s existence.

Humans evolved gradually from lesser animals, most recently, primates. Apes.

That theory has been dead in the water for years. I would update you but there is a ban on evolution discussion in this forum.

There were millions of them, all gradually getting a little bit smarter, about 1/1000th I.Q. tick per generation, on average, as their brains got larger.

Ancient beings did exist at one time.

The Adam and Eve story is a myth, made-up nonsense like Santa Claus. Intelligent people do not take it seriously.

Intelligent people have free choice.

In the light of all the knowledge currently available about the truth of God’s Created Universe, how can anyone with a three-digit I.Q. believe that God came down, picked up a pair of Neanderthals from their comfy caves in Europe, dropped them in a lovely garden in prehistoric Iraq, named them Adam and Eve, gave them each a full body shave, and condemned their entire progeny because Eve got conned by a snake, and Adam by a two-legged snake. If they were that stupid, the only one to blame would be God, for expecting a pair of idiots to follow one simple order.

That is not Catholic doctrine.

Let’s pretend for a moment that we are on a philosophy forum, where critical thinking is valued at least as much as medieval dogma. Taking the A & E story at face value for the sake of argument, ask this:

If you mean that every word in the first three chapters of* Genesis* is literally real, that is not Catholic doctrine.

ask this:[nowing everything, God would know that he had created Adam and Eve as very stupid, primitive beings who would never follow his simple order to not eat from a certain tree. He knew that He would get annoyed at their failure instead of taking any personal responsibility for the limited intelligence He gave them, and that He would kick them out of the garden and visit the curse of Original Sin upon their entire progeny until the end of humankind, and that He would be dealing with this nonsense, every bit of which He could have avoided, until the end of humankind.

You couldn’t sell that goofy plot to the worst TV soap opera.

Since you are not referring to Catholic doctrine, you may have to try soap opera.

You know that I believe in a Creator. You may know that my understanding of God is of an entity with finite intelligence, not omniscience. Although IMO God’s intelligence is finite, it is also extremely high, beyond the ability of any human to fathom. I refuse to believe that the Creator of the Universe could be as inept as implied by the Genesis creation myths.

Everyone one is free to consider God as being inept. So what!!!

Kindly activate your mind and come back with something other than rote dogma. This is a philosophy forum, remember.

[/quote]

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Well, wait. You say that what makes our biology germane in our ill-attempted quest is specifically “time relative to the human experience–” the fact that humans, being biological, are subject to time. That works for humans, but since it wasn’t their intrinsic biology–so presumably it was something else–that faulted the angels, then maybe it wasn’t our biology that failed us.

Obviously, what I take issue with is your whole biology/ill-attempted quest/children becoming adults construction.

I explicitly disagree with this and I think the issue at hand is far more basic. There is the composition of the material (which would include all things biological) and then there is the composition of divinity–pure spirit. Our entity is composed of both. That doesn’t make us gods and it doesn’t make the angels (or the fallen angels, who are of the same original divine composition) gods either. God’s Godliness is ascribed to his identity in an ontological way and, I would argue, is not in any way uniquely bound to the metaphysical substance of HIs composition as pure spirit.

So, in short, I see no contrast between the composition of an angel and the composition of God.

Ok…lets say the composition of angels is identical to the composition of God.
If thats true, there is equal value , save the mentioned Godliness ascribed to his identity which is “not” bound to the composition of pure Spirit.

In other words , the composition is the same , but since God is God, you think without evidence, theres only a difference, because God is God…

So what do we have in the final end. God and angels of the same composition but… you “think” God being God would be superior without evidence other than name. The only notion that angels had to empower themselves was the realization that they were not God, as they were identical in composition(ability-power)

Of which Godily name the angels could never have in the first place. What a plan, must of been some real thinking going on See where this non-sense gets you? The OT is a book of tales and everybody knows it . I checked it out, OT , is used for teaching principal, its a book of tales.

 

[Curious_Seed]

I like that much better than the absolution of original sin, and I’m not a fan of John, who is a tad mystical for my taste.

Of course I read the entire Chapter so as to evaluate 10:10 in context. It seems to me that :10 requires interpretation. Christ was not referring to biological life, was he? We’ve finally managed to make it more abundant and last longer, but these are the effects of free-enterprise capitalism putting science to work, after Galileo wrested it from the clutches of Christ’s Church.

If he was referring to post-death life, I thought that the Church taught that the soul is eternal? How could Christ make it last longer than that? Abundance is another issue. The religious dogmas on the matter of post-death survival divide into hell, in which our abundance is torture— and heaven, with infinite abundance and happiness, nothing wanting. That would seem to make 10:10 an irrelevant comment.

I have a personal issue. I do not like being regarded as sheep. Doesn’t mean I’m not the equivalent of one, as most people seem to be. I find it a demeaning perspective. .

Your question about the purpose of Christ to earth is answered by John 10:10 (notwithstanding, you not being a fan).

Your text (above) is riddled with so many tributaries that it becomes little more than diatribe to this audience member.

But, I would like to address the one undiluted thought you did express, concerning your personal issue.

You do not like being regarded as a sheep, finding it a demeaning perspective.

Fair enough.

According to John 10:27, Christ does not regard you as one.

 

[greylorn]

Your entertaining version of the myth of Adam and Eve overlooks its fundamental truths. We are not created by purposeless particles but by the Supreme Being who far exceeds us in His wisdom, power and love. At one point in history our ancestors distinguished between good and evil. They chose evil and we have inherited the effects of that choice, a fact for which there is the overwhelming evidence of the bloodstained history of the human race. There is no conundrum there!

Eating fruit off a forbidden tree is not an evil act. It is an act of simple disobedience.

Wiser and more thoughtful value judgments are available. Gouging someone’s eyes out is evil. Torturing people or beheading them because they disagree with your religious beliefs is evil.

Eating fruit off someone else’s tree is something that kids do because the tree is there. Not evil, but the nature God built into us.

It amazes me to observe the bizarre illogic that people will perpetrate to avoid admitting that human beings are the only known source of evil on planet earth, and that the Creator of Man is in any way responsible for the inherent nature of His creations.

 

[grannymh]

Eating fruit off a forbidden tree is not an evil act. It is an act of simple disobedience.

May I gently point out that here is precisely the place where both literalists and rationalists make the mistake of misinterpreting this scene outside the context of God’s relationship with humans. The first three chapters of Genesis pound home that we are different from other earthly creatures because God has a personal relationship with us and we have a personal relationship with God.

Wiser and more thoughtful value judgments are available. Gouging someone’s eyes out is evil. Torturing people or beheading them because they disagree with your religious beliefs is evil.

Yes, wiser and more thoughtful judgments are needed. Humans have corrupted the concept of the value and dignity of the person. The value and dignity of people dates back to Genesis where the Creator deliberately establishes human creatures in His powerful friendship.

Eating fruit off someone else’s tree is something that kids do because the tree is there. Not evil, but the nature God built into us

.
Literalists often lose sight of the deep, necessary truths which are the basis for the first three chapters of Genesis. Like rationalists and relativists they are uncomfortable with the serious effects of scorning their Creator so they minimize the “garden” story into something they can deal with–for example immature children.

It amazes me to observe the bizarre illogic that people will perpetrate to avoid admitting that human beings are the only known source of evil on planet earth, and that the Creator of Man is in any way responsible for the inherent nature of His creations.

Yes, this is a conundrum mostly due to incomplete facts.

Catholicism admits of two sources of evil which can cause terrible havoc not because of their inherent nature per se, but because their inherent nature includes the faculties of intellect and will which make free choice possible.

Both devils and humans can do evil. Neither were originally created as evil beings. It was the gift of freedom which allowed both to either love God and live in submission to Him or to separate themselves from God’s friendship. It should be noted that human creatures are not equal to their Creator which is why it is said that humans are submissive to God.

Blessings,
granny

The human person per se is worthy of profound respect.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Granny,

I have a minor quibble with this:

The value and dignity of people dates back to Genesis where the Creator deliberately establishes human creatures in His powerful friendship.

This is not truth Granny. The Value and Dignity of people pre-dates any book in the Abrahamic religions.

 

[grannymh]

Granny,

I have a minor quibble with this:

The value and dignity of people dates back to Genesis where the Creator deliberately establishes human creatures in His powerful friendship.

This is not truth Granny. The Value and Dignity of people pre-dates any book in the Abrahamic religions.

It is true that Value and Dignity begins with the first human being. As far as I know, Genesis is the book which gives the reason for human being’s value and dignity which is that God created humans in His friendship. As I understand the minor quibble, it is trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint the “when” of human creation. In that sense, I agree with you that the Value and Dignity of people pre-dates any written books.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16 & 17

 

[razredge]

What was Christ’s real purpose in showing up on planet earth?

It cannot be to absolve mankind of “original sin.” because that concept was not invented until centuries after Christ’s death, by Augustine.

The Jews to whom Christ preached had no concept of original sin. In fact, the Genesis tale which laid its foundation only became part of Jewish lore after it was introduced by two separate scribes returning from the Babylonian captivity, where they picked up separate versions of the Genesis tale from the Babylonians, who’d gotten them from some Greeks. The Captivity ended only a few centuries B.C.

It makes little sense, to me anyway, that Christ’s purpose was to absolve mankind of a pseudo-sin which no human had never heard of. By my reading, the three useful N.T. books make no mention of original sin. What was Christ’s purpose, really?

Christ’s purpose was to bring about positive moral change to humanity and enlighten them on how to achieve salvation.

Has nothing to do with original sin, which is largely an invention of St Paul and the Church Fathers

 

[greylorn]

Christ’s purpose was to bring about positive moral change to humanity and enlighten them on how to achieve salvation.

Has nothing to do with original sin, which is largely an invention of St Paul and the Church Fathers

Good, straight-up reply. Thanks!

 

[grannymh]

Christ’s purpose was to bring about positive moral change to humanity and enlighten them on how to achieve salvation.

Has nothing to do with original sin, which is largely an invention of St Paul and the Church Fathers

That was a dang good invention. Explained a lot. 'Course it scares people silly. Hey! Humorous horror gets one to sleep when the bats fly at night.

 

[grannymh]

That was a dang good invention. Explained a lot. 'Course it scares people silly. Hey! A good conundrum gets one to sleep when the bats fly at night.

 

[davidv]

Christ’s purpose was to bring about positive moral change to humanity and enlighten them on how to achieve salvation.

Has nothing to do with original sin, which is largely an invention of St Paul and the Church Fathers

How did St Paul invent the sin of Adam?

 

[razredge]

That was a dang good invention. Explained a lot. 'Course it scares people silly. Hey! Humorous horror gets one to sleep when the bats fly at night.

Then explain why neither the Muslims or the Jews (who share the exact same account in Genesis) have no notion of Original Sin.

Judaism and Islam interpret the account of the fall as being simply historical, Adam and Eve’s disobedience would have already been known to God even before he created them, thus draw no particular theological implications for human nature.[citation needed] That is, man’s setting, condition, and environment have in essence changed - but not man himself. Quite simply, because of Adam’s actions, he and his wife were removed from the garden, forced to work, suffer pain in childbirth, and die. However, even after expelling them from the garden, God provided that people who honor God and follow God’s laws would be rewarded, while those who acted wrongly would be punished

So it wasn’t some pre-existing belief among the Jews - the first mention of something like original sin was in the writings of St Paul "just as all sin came through one man, so salvation came through one man etc.) which was then developed by Church Fathers in the 2nd century as a response to Gnosticism.

The doctrine of original sin was first developed in 2nd-century Bishop of Lyon Irenaeus’s struggle against Gnosticism.Irenaeus contrasted their doctrine with the view that the Fall was a step in the wrong direction by Adam, with whom, Irenaeus believed, his descendants had some solidarity or identity. Irenaeus believed that Adam’s sin had grave consequences for humanity, that it is the source of human sinfulness, mortality and enslavement to sin, and that all human beings participate in his sin and share his guilt.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

Furthermore, the genetic and historic evidence against the existence of Adam & Eve doesn’t help the case either.