E
elizabeth4truth
Guest
Was original sin one sin? Was it made up of some of the 7 or all of the 7 deadly sins? Is there evidence to back theory? Thank you.
- Status
T
Trelow
Guest
397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.
Original sin and the resulting sins are different things, the cause and the effect.
The Catechism rocks!
God bless.
Original sin and the resulting sins are different things, the cause and the effect.
The Catechism rocks!
God bless.
E
elizabeth4truth
Guest
T
Trelow
Guest
Well the 7 deadly sins are not actual sins per-say, they are ways to classify how the sins originate within us.
I don’t know what Adam’s intents were, and I’d rather not speculate on why people sin. He choose himself over God. Why? I don’t know. Although I’m sure each facet the big seven played a part, they always do.
The original sin was a result of free will, they had full grace but even as such disobeyed. That is why it was so grievous. even the angels can have temptations of the seven and they have no original sin, see for example Lucifer.
But no you cannot sin without consent of the will. So don’t worry about damning yourself in your sleep.
S
Shiann
Guest
First we need to understand what Original Sin is, and what it isn’t. Original Sin isn’t an ACTION. It is a STATE OF BEING. Adam and Eve were perfect. They- like Mary after them, were born free from Original Sin with COMPLETE understanding of reason over temptations.Trelow:
Thank you for your response. The Catechism is a great tool for us to understand our faith! I’m still not convinced original sin was separate from the 7 deadly sins though. I’ve been thinking, ut oh, that in itself is temptation.
When we sleep we don’t sin, do we? Our ability to act upon reason is temporarily disabled. So it takes thought coupled with action to sin?
This is correct. To commit grave sin requires FULL knowledge and grave matter.
When they, having this perfection, decided to disobey their Lord; the result was a chasm in the relationship between God and mankind so profound, that it shook into eternity. This one decision to “know better than God” is what introduces the idea of Original Sin, and seperates mankind from this attribute of perfect reasoning over temptation and from God- forever.
So by your reasoning, if the seven deadly sins are a part of Original Sin, and if Original Sin is not something that Adam and Eve had, therefore whatever made them decide to go against God could not have been attributed to the seven deadly sins.
The seven deadly sins, are no more than a way to organize our thoughts, and to inform us of the general “feelings” that can quickly lead us to commit mortal sin. You will note, that many of these “deadly sins” are only sins in excess.
We can be proud, but not in such a way that outshines the Glory of God.
We can have a sense of posession. This sense helps us take care of the things we have. But in excess- we begin to ignore the gifts the Lord bestows upon us.
Righteous anger is often justified- and is a good motivator! But again, in excess it clouds our judgement- and may lead to terrible actions.
Our sex drive is an important part of our relationship with our spouse. A good hearty dose of passion is good for the marital relations!
Obviously when that passion extends to people it shouldn’t- then it is grave matter.You get the picture.
No. Remember Adam and Eve had PERFECT reasoning over their temptation. Their rejection of God was PERFECTLY blatant and PERFECTLY thought out.
Again, the seven deadly sins are just a way for us to easily recognize when our more basal tendencies might lead us into mortal sin. It is in these 7 aspects which we must be VERY carefull in our actions and decisions- lest we commit mortal sin. Adam and Eve had full reason over these basal tendencies.
Hope that helps. For further study- access the Catholic Encyclopedia on www.newadvent.org and look up Original Sin.
No, it is something WAY MORE profound.
Great question!
E
elizabeth4truth
Guest
Dear Shiann,
Thank you for responding. There are still some areas that confuse me.
:banghead: I don’t get this at all. I can understand that the “state of being” part might be in our thoughts; a matter of how we perceive ourselves, in relation to God? Is that what you meant? And, that the original sin in regards to this might be wanting to be equal to God? But wouldn’t that comprise at least envy and pride, maybe even lust and gluttony?
About the “action” part, are you saying the original sin was committed without a physical action taking place? What about the story of the tree and the fruit?:banghead:
Was the original sin the development of a plan to overtake or be equal to our Creator? Is that what mankind continues to do in science? Is science really us trying to figure out how God does things? Then we try to out do God, and we mess up royally?
S
Shiann
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean by this part. Original Sin doesn’t comprise of anything. Original Sin is the ABSENCE of the Grace that comes from God.
I don’t know. The Tree and Fruit could be an allegory for the perfect insubordination of Adam and Eve. I’m not sure this even matters a whole lot. The point of the story is, that Mankind- perfect and completely connected with God- choose to ignore God in some way because mankind thought itself more than God.
As a result of our behavior, an unsurmountable rift was created- and the Grace of God fell away.
I don’t know Adam and Eve did exaclty. But its funny that you should bring up science. I was thinking science would be a great example of how something can be used for such good, and as a reflection of the Glory of God. But in excess- it can be used to attempt to overshadow God. It is very similar to the effects of the seven deadly sins.
I think the lesson here is to ALWAYS remember to place God first in everything we do. When we do that, it is a lot harder to fall into the trap of the seven deadly sins.
E
elizabeth4truth
Guest
Thank you so much for responding. I am very interested in better understanding this subject. I cannot put time to it now but intend on investigating the website you mentioned in your first post.
Again thank you. Your perspective, wisdom and understanding are helping me very much.
Again thank you. Your perspective, wisdom and understanding are helping me very much.
Y
yqbd
Guest
1Jo 2:16 For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
was it sin to eat “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” or did sin enter because they had “the knowledge of good and evil”?
wouldn’t “the knowledge of good and evil,” be like one of the ultimate free will choices? sort of like the Father asking us if we want to know “good and evil” and since they chose to know “good and evil” we are going through the experience of “good and evil”.
sort of like “The Matrix,” with the red and blue pills.
would we all have chosen to know “good and evil”?
Adam, while in the garden, with everything he needed, fell into temptation, but the Christ, in the desert, with nothing (save Scripture, Deuteronomy, like Israel had in the desert), overcame temptation. (heard this from somewhere. how original is it?)
was it sin to eat “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” or did sin enter because they had “the knowledge of good and evil”?
wouldn’t “the knowledge of good and evil,” be like one of the ultimate free will choices? sort of like the Father asking us if we want to know “good and evil” and since they chose to know “good and evil” we are going through the experience of “good and evil”.
sort of like “The Matrix,” with the red and blue pills.
would we all have chosen to know “good and evil”?
Adam, while in the garden, with everything he needed, fell into temptation, but the Christ, in the desert, with nothing (save Scripture, Deuteronomy, like Israel had in the desert), overcame temptation. (heard this from somewhere. how original is it?)
S
Shiann
Guest
Adam and Eve thought they knew better than God. He gave them a command. They decided they were not going to obey that command because they wished to be equal to God. They had perfect reasoning over this temptation. They had no basal need to commit a sin against God as they had this perfect reasoning over any basal instincts.
The Fall didn’t happen because they “ate of the fruit” and all the “knowledge” flooded into them and they became seperated from God. It happened because they chose not to be limited by God.
Note the following passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia citation on Sin:
When Adam and Eve deliberately refused to obey, moral evil resulted.
The Fall didn’t happen because they “ate of the fruit” and all the “knowledge” flooded into them and they became seperated from God. It happened because they chose not to be limited by God.
Note the following passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia citation on Sin:
God is purely, perfectly, good. Anything less than God is “lacking goodness”. In other words the part that lacks goodness, contains evil.
When Adam and Eve deliberately refused to obey, moral evil resulted.
E
elizabeth4truth
Guest
Dear Shiann,
Been giving this some thought. Don’t have much time now and will be gone the weekend. It’s morning and that’s when the thoughts flood in.
I think I get the concept of original sin being a “state of being”, for all who came after Adam and Eve. It’s like we are born with our backs turned toward God until we are baptized. Seems significant that we are born upside-down even. And when we are baptized it is on our heads, which turns us upright.
Think the problem I’m facing is, the physical “act” of original sin, performed by Adam and Eve, and its significance, not to the rift caused between God and man, but the rift it caused between man and woman. They were created perfect, as you said. Original sin wasn’t a “state of being” for them, from what I see, it developed somehow.
It seems to be on my heart, to ponder and look for ways for this rift to be further healed.
I appreciate what you have said in these posts and will keep trying to better understand this subject, by God’s grace.
Your sister, Elizabeth
Been giving this some thought. Don’t have much time now and will be gone the weekend. It’s morning and that’s when the thoughts flood in.
I think I get the concept of original sin being a “state of being”, for all who came after Adam and Eve. It’s like we are born with our backs turned toward God until we are baptized. Seems significant that we are born upside-down even. And when we are baptized it is on our heads, which turns us upright.
Think the problem I’m facing is, the physical “act” of original sin, performed by Adam and Eve, and its significance, not to the rift caused between God and man, but the rift it caused between man and woman. They were created perfect, as you said. Original sin wasn’t a “state of being” for them, from what I see, it developed somehow.
It seems to be on my heart, to ponder and look for ways for this rift to be further healed.
I appreciate what you have said in these posts and will keep trying to better understand this subject, by God’s grace.
Your sister, Elizabeth
C
chadwilliams
Guest
Pride.
S
Shiann
Guest
Have a great weekend!
That’s a fine way of looking at it.
Right, Adam and Eve obviously weren’t born with Original Sin. That was something that Adam passed down to his children after God told them of the reprocussions of their actions. (Death, toil, pain in childbirth, loss of reasoning over passions et.al.)
But I’m not sure what you mean by “the rift caused between man and woman”. From my studies, I know of no specific result of the Fall of Adam and Eve which would have a reprocussion of creating a rift between male and female.
The only thing that would be close would be the fact that humanity, after the Fall, no longer has complete mastery over it’s passions. (Oddly enough, categorized in the seven deadly sins.) This lack of control will bring about many problems between many people: young- old, male-female, father-son, brother-brother, etc.
By first thinking of God, before self- always. This rift automatically closes!
Blessings to you as you journey.
God speed.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Original sin not only caused a rupture in the relationship between man and God, it caused a rupture in the relationships between men and women. Genesis talks about the rupture between men and women in Gen. 3:16: To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.” What is this “urge” that a woman has towards her husband, and why does God say that in spite of her urge, that her husband will be her master? It cannot be that the “urge” of the woman is her desire to have sexual relations with her husband, since that is something that is good, and that is something that she possessed before the Fall. The desire to be bonded to her husband through sex is not a punishment from God.
The wonan’s urge has to be something other than this, and we can see what it is when we look at the next use of the word “urge” in Genesis: In the course of time Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the soil, while Abel, for his part, brought one of the best firstlings of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not. Cain greatly resented this and was crestfallen. So the LORD said to Cain: “Why are you so resentful and crestfallen? If you do well, you can hold up your head; but if not, sin is a demon lurking at the door: his urge is toward you, yet you can be his master.”
Genisis 4:3-7
The “urge” of Satan was Satan’s will to dominate Cain and lead him into sin. Satan wanted to be the master of Cain. The “urge” of the woman is her desire to dominate her husband become the master of the household, a role that is not hers to have. All women struggle with idea they are to be submissive to men, and when this urge is not controlled, men and women are thrown into conflict. An example of this is found in women that cannot accept that there will never be ordained women priests in the Catholic Church. These women simply cannot accept that they must be submissive to the all male hierarchy of Christ’s Church.Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
1Tim.2: 11-15
S
Shiann
Guest
You know, I reviewed this again, and I must agree that there does seem to be a subtle division specifically between men and women. First you note:
Matt16_18:
To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.
I found the following passage on an apologetics site: (kensmen.com/catholic/modesty.html)
God made Adam and Eve perfect and perfectly harmonious – with Himself and with each other. Then they sinned and saw themselves as they then were – fallen, separated from God and from each other. Having lost the grace with which they were created, they began to retreat into their own egos and blame each other, even God, for their sins: “the serpent deceived me,” “the woman you sent deceived me,” etc. The original harmony of the Garden broken, Adam and Eve no longer completed the other perfectly per God’s design, but were now in felt need of each other, a need they tried to fill by grasping the other through their concupiscence and brokenness. Their relationship was now tainted, and shame filled them as their nakedness came to be a sign of their incompleteness and vulnerability, and an inducement to lust. Sensing their isolation from each other and from God, they covered themselves with quickly-fashioned aprons. Then God Himself clothed them, replacing those small fig leaf aprons with different garments – body-covering tunics (tunicas in the Vulgate, ktnvt in the Hebrew) that extended to the knees (the root of the word ktnvt means “cover”).
I believe “being under thy husband’s power” is something more than just the urges one has for sexual intimacy with a spouse which IS right and good. I think it has to do with lust, and how people make sexual objects out of one another for personal gratification- not the gratification of the other. I’m not sure, but I do think this phrase has to do with sexuality.
And indeed, under further scrutiny, I found a VERY interesting essay on the parallels of Blessed Mary and Eve, and these three reprocussions:
St. Lawrence confirms his own exegesis by measuring it against the tradition of the Church as articulated by his holy and learned predecessors:
Therefore by these words of the angel, as St. Bernard says “the ancient curse of women was removed and a new mother received a new blessing. She who knew not concupiscence was made full through grace so that, with the Spirit of the Most High overcoming her, she, who deigned not to know man, might give birth to a son” (Serm. 2 De Annunciat. V.M. n. 1; P.L. 183, 977). Likewise Fulgentius says in De Laudibus Mariae: "The three evils of Eve were shown to be foreclosed by the three goods of Mary. For of Eve it was said: ‘In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee’ (Gn 3, 16, Douay-Rheims). Mary, on the contrary, was elevated by three most illustrious goods; consider: the angelic salutation, the divine benediction, and the fullness of grace. Thus we read that the angel greeted her: ‘Hail full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women.’ When he said, hail, he revealed to her the heavenly greeting. When he said, full of grace, he showed that she was entirely excluded from the ira sententiae, the anger of the first judgment and that the full grace of the original benediction was restored. When he said, blessed are you among women, he expressed the blessed fruit of her virginity so that from this benediction whosoever among women shall have persevered may be called virgin’ (See Serm. 36; P.L. 65, 899).
Continued…
In order to get to the most direct english translation, I looked the Genesis 3:16 passage up the my Douay-Rheims bible, and this is what the translation of this passage was:
To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.
I found the following passage on an apologetics site: (kensmen.com/catholic/modesty.html)
God made Adam and Eve perfect and perfectly harmonious – with Himself and with each other. Then they sinned and saw themselves as they then were – fallen, separated from God and from each other. Having lost the grace with which they were created, they began to retreat into their own egos and blame each other, even God, for their sins: “the serpent deceived me,” “the woman you sent deceived me,” etc. The original harmony of the Garden broken, Adam and Eve no longer completed the other perfectly per God’s design, but were now in felt need of each other, a need they tried to fill by grasping the other through their concupiscence and brokenness. Their relationship was now tainted, and shame filled them as their nakedness came to be a sign of their incompleteness and vulnerability, and an inducement to lust. Sensing their isolation from each other and from God, they covered themselves with quickly-fashioned aprons. Then God Himself clothed them, replacing those small fig leaf aprons with different garments – body-covering tunics (tunicas in the Vulgate, ktnvt in the Hebrew) that extended to the knees (the root of the word ktnvt means “cover”).
I believe “being under thy husband’s power” is something more than just the urges one has for sexual intimacy with a spouse which IS right and good. I think it has to do with lust, and how people make sexual objects out of one another for personal gratification- not the gratification of the other. I’m not sure, but I do think this phrase has to do with sexuality.
And indeed, under further scrutiny, I found a VERY interesting essay on the parallels of Blessed Mary and Eve, and these three reprocussions:
St. Lawrence confirms his own exegesis by measuring it against the tradition of the Church as articulated by his holy and learned predecessors:
Therefore by these words of the angel, as St. Bernard says “the ancient curse of women was removed and a new mother received a new blessing. She who knew not concupiscence was made full through grace so that, with the Spirit of the Most High overcoming her, she, who deigned not to know man, might give birth to a son” (Serm. 2 De Annunciat. V.M. n. 1; P.L. 183, 977). Likewise Fulgentius says in De Laudibus Mariae: "The three evils of Eve were shown to be foreclosed by the three goods of Mary. For of Eve it was said: ‘In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee’ (Gn 3, 16, Douay-Rheims). Mary, on the contrary, was elevated by three most illustrious goods; consider: the angelic salutation, the divine benediction, and the fullness of grace. Thus we read that the angel greeted her: ‘Hail full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women.’ When he said, hail, he revealed to her the heavenly greeting. When he said, full of grace, he showed that she was entirely excluded from the ira sententiae, the anger of the first judgment and that the full grace of the original benediction was restored. When he said, blessed are you among women, he expressed the blessed fruit of her virginity so that from this benediction whosoever among women shall have persevered may be called virgin’ (See Serm. 36; P.L. 65, 899).
Continued…
S
Shiann
Guest
Again, from the DR scripture:
And it came to pass after many days, that Cain offered, of the fruits of the earth, gifts to the Lord. Abel also offered of the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat: and the Lord had respect to Abel, and to his offerings. But to Cain and his offerings he had no respect: and Cain was exceedingly angry, and his countenance fell. And the Lord said to him: Why art thou angry? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it.
I don’t think these passages are as related as you would have them be. But I do think that you are correct in that there does seem to be evidence for a “rift” between spouses created after the Fall.
I think this passage has to do with how we are to give God our hearts and minds. In this passage, God was well pleased with Abel’s offerings, but not with Cain’s. When God admonished Cain, Cain became angry and jealous. God reminds him that when we harbor ill feelings, sin is VERY close to us…(near occasion) but even with sin so near, we ALWAYS have dominion over these temptations. [Again this seems very representative of the basal qualities of those deadly sins we’ve been discussing. But here again, scripture shows us that we are ALWAYS in control. Sin is always below us, spiritually.]
S
Shiann
Guest
This statement I have some difficulty with. Again, I do not think that this “urge” you refer to is related to domination- there are a number of women I know who do not struggle with this role. In fact they long to fulfill it.
Note the following passage from the Catechism :
Marriage under the regime of sin
1606 Every man experiences evil around him and within himself. This experience makes itself felt in the relationships between man and woman. Their union has always been threatened by discord, a spirit of domination, infidelity, jealousy, and conflicts that can escalate into hatred and separation. This disorder can manifest itself more or less acutely, and can be more or less overcome according to the circumstances of cultures, eras, and individuals, but it does seem to have a universal character.
1607 According to faith the disorder we notice so painfully does not stem from the nature of man and woman, nor from the nature of their relations, but from sin. As a break with God, the first sin had for its first consequence the rupture of the original communion between man and woman. Their relations were distorted by mutual recriminations;[96] their mutual attraction, the Creator’s own gift, changed into a relationship of domination and lust;[97] and the beautiful vocation of man and woman to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth was burdened by the pain of childbirth and the toil of work.[98]
1608 Nevertheless, the order of creation persists, though seriously disturbed. To heal the wounds of sin, man and woman need the help of the grace that God in his infinite mercy never refuses them.[99] Without his help man and woman cannot achieve the union of their lives for which God created them “in the beginning.”
I really think this isn’t as simple as a him vs. her. I believe God was warning us against BOTH women who have avoided their roles as wives and mothers, AND men who have remained outside their roles as provider and protector.
You and I both know of those women who think nothing of dropping kids off at daycare to get some “adult conversation”. And I’m sure we both know as many men who aren’t sure what their “role” is anymore. Men used to be protectors, and providers. Now they find themselves pushed out of both realms for fear of retribution.
Women were created as a companion for man. Women serve Christ by supporting and nurturing and being a companion for their husbands- and mother’s to their children. Women are not made to SOLELY serve men and kids. (I know you realize this- I’m just ironing out the details of my thought
Men serve Christ in his role as leader of his family.::sigh::
I find myself at a loss for words. There is still a thought I have, that just can’t seem to gel this late at night. I would still like to comment on the original “urge” and relate that to the disordered sexual feelings of lust, but I need to do some more thinking and research.
This has been a most interesting turn of events. I had never realized the depth of the Fall in relation to men and women, and look forward to more discussion on this.
But not tonite.
E
elizabeth4truth
Guest
Dear Matt,
I hope in exploring the “before” picture, in Genesis, we might see how God wants the “after” picture to look. When we pray “Your will be done one earth, as it is in heaven.” are we saying we want male and female spirits to be in harmony on earth, as they are in heaven? What does that mean in relation to how we act toward one another on earth?
I don’t think wives want to dominate their husbands. I don’t agree that we need to “control” the “urge” to dominate because what women really want is justice, not to dominate. I don’t think men want to dominate their wives either. What seems to happen is a struggle for power that doesn’t exist in heaven becuase of things like pride, greed, envy, gluttony, anger, lust and sloth.
Maybe if we understood better the division we might find healing?
Jesus came to heal the division between God and man. Didn’t he also begin the healing between the sexes? Do you think He would have been regarded as a feminist by His radical treatment of the women in His day?
I’m not really interested in debating the women being ordained thing. I just want God’s will to be done on earth, as it is in heaven.
- Status