A
aprilfloyd
Guest
I don’t see how original sin even exists again I can only see it as metaphorical
- Status
F
fhansen
Guest
OS, as a state or condition of man inherited from Adam & Eve, can be defined as separation from God. IOW, the state we’re all born into, without immediate knowledge of, let alone faith in, let alone love for, God, is said to be a *disorder *of sorts, an injustice, an unnatural condition for man. Only as man communes with God does order begin to be restored.
G
grannymh
Guest
You have my sincere sympathy.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
I was not there, so forgive me if I don’t know all the details.
But I assume you were not there either, so what is your evidence for it being a fictional story?Do you not believe that God breathed a human soul into man making him human?
Is your contention that it happened longer ago than seems to be indicated by Scriptures?
Do you believe that man developed over thousands of years and then at some point God breathed a human soul into him?
All this I believe is within the realm of possibility in Catholic teaching.
You do believe that God breathed a human soul into man making him human, don’t you? If so, then when he did so, whatever is wrong with calling that first man, Adam?
If not, then your incredulity must be over man being more than just an animal. There’s not much purpose in discussing morals, if you believe that. One significant thing that sets man apart from the animals is his ability to make moral decisions, his free will.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
We don’t say that God created animals in His image and likeness. So why would you suppose that the features and qualities that we share with the animals are in His image and likeness? Look to man’s self awareness, his reasoning ability, his free will, then you will begin to see His image.
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
No one can prove that. That is an old religionist argument. It does not wash. I was not there when stories of Mount Olympus, or Egyptian Gods were written about - I don’t believe them. Or more prosaically, I was not in Edinburgh when JK Rowling wrote of Harry Potter, but I know Harry is not a real wizard, but I can’t prove it. The religionist arguement of ‘you can’t prove it’ is used by all religions, but IMO does not advance there position one bit.I was not there, so forgive me if I don’t know all the details.
No.
I think it has been established by people a lot clever than me that man did evolve over thousands of years.
I agree it is.
No. I don’t see how your God could do that. And why your god and not one of the others?
I agree that man is a more ‘developed’ animal than other animals, at this stage in the history of the earth. But he is STILL an animal - I don’t see any evidence for him being more than that.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
Your disbelief is more fundamental than the Adam and Eve story. You do not believe man is more than an animal. As you say, you believe he is only a more developed animal. This denies his free will. If you do not deny man has free will, then you do agree he is more that the animals, which have no free will, and you come full circle to believing in the human soul.
Your reference to God (why your God and not one of the others?) leads me to believe you do not believe in God, although you might have an open mind about it, I don’t know. No one can make you believe in God, I am with St. Paul that the existence of God is self evident. To me it is more basic that reason has words to describe it. I commend you to Our Lady that someday you will see that there is a God, and decide to love and serve Him.
A
Aloysium
Guest
seems to me:
genetically/biologically we cannot sin
animals do not sin
we can do things that can affect the functioning of ourselves or others in a negative fashion:
at our depths, we have turned from God,
at baptism, we join with our brothers and sisters as part of Christ’s Church to rebuild our relationship with Him
however, the wound caused by our disobedience makes it difficult to exercise rational control, and sin is something against which we must struggle
Jesus’ death and resurrection has redeemed us
genetically/biologically we cannot sin
animals do not sin
we can do things that can affect the functioning of ourselves or others in a negative fashion:
- eat something poisonous, jump off a cliff, hurt someone, etc
- these aren’t sins, in fact there is no such thing as sin from a material/scientific perspective
- it pertains to the spiritual
- it goes against reason, against what is good, what is beautiful, against life and love
- it attacks those elements within us that are an image of our Creator
at our depths, we have turned from God,
at baptism, we join with our brothers and sisters as part of Christ’s Church to rebuild our relationship with Him
however, the wound caused by our disobedience makes it difficult to exercise rational control, and sin is something against which we must struggle
Jesus’ death and resurrection has redeemed us
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
With all due respect James, I think it is well established that man is an animal. I think that argument has been won - if it was ever truly debated
I am not denying he has free will. I don’t know the answer to that. He may have - he may not - that argument goes on and is maybe for another thread.
I don’t see how any religion can posit that God is self evident - that would surely mean that all gods are self evident. Again that argument takes me nowhere.
I have an open mind. proof rather than hope/faith helps me change it and I will and have.
G
grannymh
Guest
May I gently point out that I was replying to someone who was misusing the Catholic doctrine of humans being made in the image of God.
Technically, being made in God’s image means that our nature is an unique unification of both the spiritual world and the material world. Because of our soul which is spiritual, we are in the image of the transcendent Pure Spirit.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
Don’t play with words with me. Man is more than an animal; most people believe this. He is set apart by his ability to think rationally and to make moral decisions.With all due respect James, I think it is well established that man is an animal. I think that argument has been won - if it was ever truly debated
I am not denying he has free will. I don’t know the answer to that. He may have - he may not - that argument goes on and is maybe for another thread.
I don’t see how any religion can posit that God is self evident - that would surely mean that all gods are self evident. Again that argument takes me nowhere.
I have an open mind. proof rather than hope/faith helps me change it and I will and have.
I won’t argue free will with you. I have free will and I exercise it. I believe it is another self evident proposition, apart from addictions and insanity.
I have another friend who says that man is nothing but an animal. Like you, he says, “Prove it to me.” And my answer is the same to you as to him,and it comes from St. Augustine: “Unless you believe you cannot understand.”
Again, I pray that you receive the gift of faith, because without it, your mind will never change; you say so yourself. Human reason is a false god.
Prove your open-mindedness. Pray to the God that you are not sure exists and ask Him to help you believe, even though it may seem irrational to you at the time.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
GM lets not feed the trolls - especially those well known not to support the Catholic Church’s clear position on this old, old, old chestnut
.Its also off topic methinks.
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
Do you really think humans are not animals??
A
Aloysium
Guest
do you really believe we are?
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
Very funny
P
preb34
Guest
Thanks for the reading. Appreciated that. But the Catechism seems to only reaffirm what I previously said:
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the Catechism, but isn’t the Catechism referring to the passing of only the effects of Adam and Eve’s sin, thus original sin?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
C
chimo
Guest
I don’t believe that the sin of Adam and Eve has any effect on your biology or any other effect on your life spiritual. The question of Original Sin from the Western Church Fathers had a greater view in judgment than the Eastern Church Fathers. The Eastern Church Fathers took a lighter view on original sin and would not give it the severe judgment as their Western counterparts took. So whose right? It is true that original sin can effect us but what troubles any Western thought on this or at least gives it an answer that the Western Church had laid too much emphasis on its judgment is of course Baptism. If Baptism makes you into a new creature than original sin from the Western point of view has no real effect on you. Baptism actually can nullify it. So what then is the real problem? Why are we inclined to sin? After Baptism the person is free from sin until the person actually commits their first sin. This then is the answer says the Eastern Church to why sin is still in this world. It is not a by product of Adam and Eve but rather everyone contributes to it through commiting their first sin. When people commit their sin after Baptism the same consequences comes to these people as does the first sin of Adam and Eve.
The problem why the Western Church had this severe judgment on original sin stems from the fact they had no recourse to the teachings of the Church Fathers of the East. In truth neither Church knew what they were teaching and in time two different original sin teachings came forth. It is only in these days that the Western Church can find out what the Eastern Church knows about its own teachings on original sin. It is quite good and even refreshing to know that God does not put out such judgments on sin as some as proposed He did. The compassion and mercy revealed in the writings and teachings of the Eastern Saints point to a less judgmental view and understanding them will help anyone who wants to learn how the East sees original sin.
The East points that we share in the sin of Adam and Eve not because they have sinned but because we will face the same devil and choices as they did. We continue the original sin because we will commit our first sin. The consequences then that befall Adam and Eve becomes our consequences. However the judgment on this original sin is far more lighter than anyone suspects. The Church Father St. John Chrysostom believes there is no passing on original sin from one generation to the other because of Adam and Eve. Read his sermons and teachings on this and you will be surprised at his conclusions. They actually make sense and it was interesting he composed his teachings at the same time when the Western Church started to put too much emphasis on the judgment of Adam and Eve’s sin.
The truth about sex and why God gave us this wonderful gift is more better taught by this same Church Father. St. John Chrysostom is way better in dealing with the truth of sex than his counterpart St. Augustine. St John reminds the people that the purpose of sex is not primarily the procreation of children. Marriage he stated must have its primarily purpose other than this ability to have children. Marriage he said is not an evil thing. It is the misuse of sex that adultery and forncation performs that is evil. Marriage he said is a remedy to eliminate fornification. There are two purposes for which marriage was instituted: to make us chaste and to make us parents. Of these two, the reason of chastity takes precedence. Marriage does not always lead to child-bearing, although there is the word of God which says, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” We have as witnesses all those who are married but childless. So the purpose of chastity takes precedence, especially now, when the whole world is filled with our kind. At the beginning, the procreation of children was desirable, so that each person might have a memorial of his life. The saint goes on saying how important it is to strive for the kingdom to come. He believes the purpose in marriage must be more than just child bearing but a movement toward the Kingdom to come. Read his book On Marriage and Family Life to get more of what I put here.
G
grannymh
Guest
A lot of us are not used to calling sanctifying grace, a “state” of holiness which makes it difficult to sort out all the elements of the Fall.
Original Sin as a contracted state refers to the soul’s deprivation of original holiness and justice. My apology. I should have included CCC 403 which refers to Original Sin as “death of the soul”.–which means that the soul was deprived of the sanctifying grace of God’s presence. Perhaps CCC 375 will make it clearer. CCC 375 refers to Adam and Eve, before the Fall, were in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in…divine life.” CCC 376 refers to Adam living in the divine intimacy. Again, this means sharing in God’s life. We share in God’s
life because we are in the state of sanctifying grace which brings us back to the reference of original holiness. CCC 1999 also explains this.
At times, we seem to forget the full meaning of God’s life within us. God’s sharing His life with us is possible because we are in the image of God. We have a spiritual soul so that God’s presence can be within us. The state of Original Sin is the loss of God’s presence. Mortal sin also causes the loss of God’s presence within our soul.
You referred to our broken nature which the Catechism calls a wounded nature. Baptism erases or removes the soul’s state of deprivation and fills it with the life of Christ’s grace. But our broken nature still has the effects which are different from the state of original sin. These effects are that we are weakened and inclined to evil. Yet, God continues to love us and call us to Himself.
One of the difficulties with all this is that some people equate Original Sin with the effects as if they are the same. The Original Sin is the action which caused Adam and Eve to lose the holiness of sanctifying grace and also to lose the harmony within their own nature. With the loss of harmony, human nature becomes inclined to choose the pleasures of lust, to desire earthly goods over God, and to have inordinate pride which refuses to submit to our Creator.
While the action and the effects are different, the loss of holiness is so dramatic that we often say that we are in the state of Original Sin.
The reason this information is very important to this thread
is that it gives the truth regarding our human nature. Original Sin is not genetic nor is it part of our biological anatomy. Knowing the truth leads us to seek God’s graces so that we can overcome our broken nature. This is why the Catholic Church has Seven Sacraments so that all possible stages of life will receive God’s divine help. Our genetics may be great, but it takes spiritual will power to stand firm in God’s love when Satan approaches.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
In a nutshell, you seem to be of the mind that the Holy Spirit does not guide and keep the Roman Church free from error in its teaching and doctrine, and that we have to go to the Eastern Church for the correct view on original sin and marriage.
You probably believe that the Holy Spirit guides both Churches, east and west, and that He sometimes is present to the Eastern Church and sometimes present to the Western Church. Now wouldn’t that be a hoot. What’s a Catholic to do!
Are we as lay Catholics to be the arbiter of truth, not the Church? Since neither church can be depended on to have the whole truth, then it’s all up to us! I have to reject this notion. The Church is one, and the Church is the Roman Church.
The God that promised to keep His Church free from error could not have meant there to be two divisions of the true Church, each with its part pf the truth, and each with it’s modicum of error. You must go with one or the other.
The papal succession from Peter is found only in the Roman Church,. He is the rock upon which the Church of Christ is built.
Also, what makes you think that the Roman Church had no idea what the Eastern Church was teaching and preaching about? I think you’ll find that they were well aware of Eastern teaching. Regardless, the Holy Spirit guided the Roman Church, and its teachings and doctrine, while not always easy to digest or understand, reflects the truth as the Spirit has given us to know. Both churches cannot have the power to bind and loose, else they would be binding contrary doctrines, one of which heaven must reject, for heaven can only bind what is truthful.
Many left Jesus when he taught that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have everlasting life. We can’t always opt for the most plausible to human reason when we choose doctrine; we must opt for the one approved of Christ, and in this case, the Church of Christ to which attaches the promise of infallibility represents the correct doctrine.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
Thank you for that.
- Status