Difficulties accepting interpretations of adam and eve

[Nita]

… at my current catholic parish, seems like many are just going thru the motions every week,.

Hi mikekle. The solution is easy, just sit in the very front row.
Or, close your eyes. I actually do that a lot - not to block out what others are doing, but just because it helps me focus on the content of the prayers as I say them to Our Lord.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I care! I think we all should. I recall once reading or hearing something like- “To understand the redemption you need to understand the fall”.

Over the years, it’s amazed me how much is contained in those first 3 chapters of Genesis; all the insights that I’ve received from those 3 chapters. It’s as tho it contains the seed/s, so to speak, for all the rest of Scripture.

I agree 100%. I think I said that a lot could be learned and even what it might be.
Of course to understand the redemption you need to understand the fall; i touched on that too, plus Genesis 3:15.

It’s just that the OP doesn’t understand why he should be responsible for Adam’s sin. This is not an easy concept to grasp and no one should let it stop them from their walk with God. They should just continue and one day they won’t Care about what Adam did!

I’ve taught the story of Adam and Eve. I think there’s so much to learn there. Hope I’ve clarified!

Fran

 

[Nita]

I agree 100%. I think I said that a lot could be learned and even what it might be.
Of course to understand the redemption you need to understand the fall; i touched on that too, plus Genesis 3:15.

It’s just that the OP doesn’t understand why he should be responsible for Adam’s sin. This is not an easy concept to grasp and no one should let it stop them from their walk with God. They should just continue and one day they won’t Care about what Adam did!

I’ve taught the story of Adam and Eve. I think there’s so much to learn there. Hope I’ve clarified!

Fran

You have clarified. Thanks.

 

[ericc]

No, that is not accurate, we ARE wired ‘for’ sin, in that, sinning, whatever form it may take, whether it be a sexual desire, drug abuse, cheating, lying, etc brings with it pleasure, the resistance to these things are tough, thats why so many people fall, its in our nature to desire things that ARE sinful, as its enjoyable, pleasurable.

sin satisfies our instant gratification, doing what makes us feel good versus whats best for us morally, in other words, if there were no consequences, people would take part in sin all the time. Our physical bodies responses to sin are pleasurable, it is not as pleasurable to resist doing them though, thats the tough part, fighting your own nature, my point was, our brains, the way they are wired, the way these sins give such pleasure, were made this way by God, Im not trying to take the blame off us, Im just saying, we were created this way for a reason.

Lets say human sex was not pleasurable, like some animal species, how many people would be committing the sin of extramarital sex?

I’d see it differently. We are given a wide range of reactions to stimuli. Drugs for example can be pleasurable. But does it cause everyone to go on a drug binge ? We don’t because we know it is wrong. Just because biologically we receive pleasure sensations does not mean we are compelled to sin. It can be avoided.

Sex is pleasurable. But one may cheat not because sex with one spouse is less pleasurable. That is hardly the main reason. Is it because the spouse is no longer the sweet young thing anymore? Then the reason quoted for pleasure is not true at all. Obviously we are “wired” to appreciate things of beauty, including sweet young things. But just because there is internal desire for beautiful things doesn’t cause one to sin. Why should one covet your neighbours stuff ( that include the wife, daughters, assets of various forms) even though they are not yours? Is it pleasurable to cheat or deprive someone of their wealth or spouse? I don’t feel good if I were to steal/rob someone something that belong to others. I think many non-religious folks also feel that way. I don’t think that was hard wired. People doing bad things usually do acknowledge that the act is wrong. Regardless whether it is pleasurable or not. Do people find murder pleasurable? Is dishonoring their parents pleasurable, stealing, lying , not keeping the Sabbath, abortion?

We don’t do many pleasurable things because we know it is bad for us, unfair to others and we wouldn’t want others to do that to us. We wouldn’t teach those things to our children because we know that is not the right thing to do and we don’t want our kids to grow up doing those things. I don’t think we are going to teach our kids that they are hard wired and therefore just do what their desires lead them to.

But why do we do it? We do it because we thought we wouldn’t be caught and punished. We can get away with it. And the easiest solution is to create a world of their own where there is no Divine Judge. And it is so easy to come up with excuses for bad behavior. Like hard wiring.

 

[guanophore]

I am having difficulties accepting the interpretation of adam and eve. First and for most, I do not deny that humans sin and are wounded. I’m struggling with the cause and who is responsible for it… Adam and eve sinned, therefore all of humanity is effected and wounded by it and damned without Christ…It;s like, hey wait a minute…I am going to hell because of what someone else is responsible for?

No. We are not personally responsible for their choices.

Raises questions, why do we all suffer because of their act? If they didn’t do what they did we would be in harmony and without sin. I feel that there is legitimate reason to place blame on them. In other words we would not have personal sin if it wasn’t for their original sin.

Your conclusion is in error. Adam and Eve were created without sin, personal or original. Our personal sin results from our choices, just as did theirs.

Now as a result we are all damned, bad, evil people because of what they did and need a savior.

This perception of the nature of humanity is not consistent with the revelation from God.

We are a victim of their act and get blamed for something out of our control. “blaming the victim”. I don’t know, maybe I’m missing something. If anyone has any thoughts please assist me with this, thx.

Are you suggesting that human beings can “control” sin?

 

[frangiuliano115]

FOR QUANOPHORE

Hi,

You quote ejp’s original statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ejp123 View Post

Now as a result we are all damned, bad, evil people because of what they did and need a savior.

To which you reply:

This perception of the nature of humanity is not consistent with the revelation from God.

Actually ejp is correct on this. Because of Adam’s sin, which is original sin and has been passed on to all of us, we ARE born in need of salvation. That’s the whole idea of christianity.

You must mean something else…

Fran

 

[mikekle]

I’d see it differently. We are given a wide range of reactions to stimuli. Drugs for example can be pleasurable. But does it cause everyone to go on a drug binge ? We don’t because we know it is wrong. Just because biologically we receive pleasure sensations does not mean we are compelled to sin. It can be avoided.

True, not everyone who tries drugs becomes fully addicted, but why…drugs DO give a great feeling, ‘wrong’ is the key here, drugs are considered wrong, because of legal implications, it can ruin your life, due to the money you spend on them, them being illegal to even have, etc. but if there were no secular consequences to using or abusing drugs, would they still be wrong in the same sense?

A great example is, one person who is prescribed very strong opiate painkillers, they take them to stop or reduce pain, in other words, to make them feel better, this is legal and perfectly fine, opiates are proven to reduce pain, ALL opiates come from the Poppy plant, but the other person, taking opiates illegally, is somehow in the wrong…?? WHY? They are still taking them for the same reason, to FEEL better, but this person is seen as wrong, only because they did not go thru the legal channels to attain and use the same substance? What about the person who cannot afford to comply with expensive monthly doctor visits to receive these drugs, yet know they work well?

So a person could go from a perfectly legal drug user to a person in the ‘wrong’ for doing the exact same thing for the exact same reason when they are patients of a doctor for many years, all while getting prescribed a certain drug, but when they loose their insurance, income, etc and cannot afford all the ‘hoops’ they are somehow in the wrong now because they want to continue to feel better?

My point is, ‘wrong’ is highly relative.

Other crimes like stealing, killing are different, as they harm others directly, that is wrong no matter how you look at it

 

[ericc]

My point is, ‘wrong’ is highly relative.

Other crimes like stealing, killing are different, as they harm others directly, that is wrong no matter how you look at it

You brought up a very good point. In fact, there is nothing wrong with many things. Guns, knives, drugs etc all can be used for good. But they can be misused. That’s why if one is on drug and if it is the right thing to do, it is classified as “on medication”. And if it is for an improper use, it is called “substance abuse”. Most things were meant to be used correctly. It became sinful when the intent became improper, whether there were harm done to third parties or not. Self inflicted intellectual harm is equally harmful and sinful ( e.g. consuming pornographic materials). You can’t find pornography in the Bible and some legal pretenders may try to say the Bible did not forbid it. But what was the intent and the side effects?

An example when I was doing some research on cooking, whipping siphon powered by a small whippet of “laughing gas” Nitrous oxide. Originally used by dentists, then in these whipping siphons. The next thing you know people are bringing balloons of these into parties to get high. Then authorities start banning sale of these to unauthorised stores. Improper usage and intent is the key to deciphering misbehaviour.

Our biology is that of animals. But we are given a mind that allows us to comprehend right/wrong, conscience, self-awareness, supernatural awareness and a host of other capabilities. We are far from the mercy of animal base instincts, cause/effect wiring. We have will. And it is free.That is how we can overcome concupiscence.

 

[guanophore]

I am catholic now, but disagree with some of the catholic interpretations of the bible…

Now my curiosity is piqued!

 

[guanophore]

FOR QUANOPHORE

Hi,

You quote ejp’s original statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ejp123 View Post

Now as a result we are all damned, bad, evil people because of what they did and need a savior.

To which you reply:

This perception of the nature of humanity is not consistent with the revelation from God.

Actually ejp is correct on this. Because of Adam’s sin, which is original sin and has been passed on to all of us, we ARE born in need of salvation. That’s the whole idea of christianity.

You must mean something else…

Fran

God created humans in His image and likeness. We bear the stamp of His nature. He called His creation “good”. The Image of God created in us did not disappear or become “evil and bad” because of the fall.

The Fall has wounded our nature, and separated us from the fellowship with God He intended for us, but Adam’s sin is not “passed on to all of us”. Rather, it is the consequences of the sin. We are born in need of a saviour, and His salvation enables us to have victory over the consequences of the Fall, and to live in a manner that is consistent with the Image of God in which were were created.

 

[frangiuliano115]

God created humans in His image and likeness. We bear the stamp of His nature. He called His creation “good”. The Image of God created in us did not disappear or become “evil and bad” because of the fall.

The Fall has wounded our nature, and separated us from the fellowship with God He intended for us, but Adam’s sin is not "passed on to all of us". Rather, it is the consequences of the sin. We are born in need of a saviour, and His salvation enables us to have victory over the consequences of the Fall, and to live in a manner that is consistent with the Image of God in which were were created.

Ooooh. I almost missed this!

I’m not speaking of the evil and bad as described by Calvin. Depravity.

I’m rather shocked to read what you say:

but Adam’s sin is not "passed on to all of us

What is Original Sin then?
Why are we baptized?

The consequence of Adam’s sin is concupiscence. Adam’s sin is NOT concupiscence but Original Sin. Which is passed on to all of us.

Romans 5:12

I think you meant the above - it’s all words.

Fran

 

[davidv]

Ooooh. I almost missed this!

I’m not speaking of the evil and bad as described by Calvin. Depravity.

I’m rather shocked to read what you say:

but Adam’s sin is not "passed on to all of us

What is Original Sin then?
Why are we baptized?

The consequence of Adam’s sin is concupiscence. Adam’s sin is NOT concupiscence but Original Sin. Which is passed on to all of us.

Romans 5:12

I think you meant the above - it’s all words.

Fran

Original sin is Adam’s personal sin. The consequence of this is we lack sanctifying grace when we are born. Baptism restores in us sanctifying grace.

Original sin (Adam’s) is not passed on us. The consequences of Adam’s sin are passed on to us.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

It appears that the phrase “erases original sin”, if misinterpreted could be in conflict with the first part, “does not have the character of a personal fault”, of the above quote.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Original sin is Adam’s personal sin. The consequence of this is we lack sanctifying grace when we are born. Baptism restores in us sanctifying grace.

Original sin (Adam’s) is not passed on us. The consequences of Adam’s sin are passed on to us.
It appears that the phrase “erases original sin”, if misinterpreted could be in conflict with the first part, “does not have the character of a personal fault”, of the above quote.

My dear david

The CCC is so contradictory that I hate using it. Personally, I prefer the bible. In fact I’m thinking of becoming protestant - they seem to agree on the important things, well, at least the mainline denominations.

Unfortunately for me, I have to use the CCC to prepare lessons. I always tremble when quoting it.

So you’re saying Original Sin is Adam’s personal sin. So it wasn’t passed down to us?
So why do we get baptized again??

Does Romans 5:12 mean nothing?

Do we here understand the concept of Adam being the first man and Jesus being the first man?

I’m tired.

Fran

 

[davidv]

My dear david

The CCC is so contradictory that I hate using it. Personally, I prefer the bible. In fact I’m thinking of becoming protestant - they seem to agree on the important things, well, at least the mainline denominations.

Unfortunately for me, I have to use the CCC to prepare lessons. I always tremble when quoting it.

So you’re saying Original Sin is Adam’s personal sin. So it wasn’t passed down to us?

Not in the sense that we are personally guilty of it.

So why do we get baptized again??

Answered above

Does Romans 5:12 mean nothing?

No. It is not clear what meaning is being referred to.

Do we here understand the concept of Adam being the first man and Jesus being the first man?

I don’t understand the question.

I’m tired.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Not in the sense that we are personally guilty of it.

Answered above

No. It is not clear what meaning is being referred to.

I don’t understand the question.

Okay. Maybe you really are asking. It’s just that I don’t have a lot of time and I never can tell when one just wants to debate and when one is really asking seriously.

1. You’re right. We are NOT personally guilty of Adam’s sin. We are only personally guilty and responsible for the sins WE commit. However, Adam’s personal sin WAS passed down to us. It’s called Original Sin. Although O.S. becomes eraditcated at baptism, the effect of it remains and is called concupiscence (please don’t make me type that word too many times!) or the Sin Nature. The bible sometimes refers to it as the sinful flesh. I’m sure you’ve come across it. This is what it means. It’s the EFFECT that Adam’s personal sin has had on all of humanity. But what was Adam’s sin called? Original Sin. And this has passed down to each and everyone of us. You could think of Adam as being ALL MEN. He is our representative.
2. Why are we baptized?
   You’re right - it’s to restore sanctifying grace. BUT, babies haven’t committed any sin yet - so how did they lose sanctifying grace? They lost it because Adam’s sin has been passed down to each of us. Baptism first of all removes Original Sin - then it instills sanctifying grace - then it makes one a member of the body of Christ. It also gives us an imprint - you should find out about this. Look up Baptism in the CCC. It’ll also confirm everything else I’ve said.
3. Romans 5:12 and on…
   DEATH THROUGH ADAM - LIFE THROUGH CHRIST

Sin entered the world thru one man - Adam. Death thus entered into the world, both physical and spriritual death because Adam is the first man and represents us all. Because of Adam’s first sin, we are all born with sin. (original sin).

Before the Law was given, men were not personally responsible for their sins but for Adam’s sin. They could still attain righteousness - by faith. (See the book of Hebrews, chapter 11) If there is no Law, there can be no sin. If you drive and pass a red light and there’s no law against it - you’re not guilty of it. Once the law is passed THEN you become guilty of passing a red light. Men, though, were still sinners because of Adam’s transgression since he represented all of us.

Now, if by one man death entered and sin, so by one man, Jesus, grace entered and by HIS obedience all of us have been made righteous because Jesus is the first fruit of the new creation.

1. Same as 3

Regards
Fran

 

[Nita]

My dear david

The CCC is so contradictory that I hate using it.

Sorry to hear that. The Catechism explains Original Sin so clearly.

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”. Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. 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.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Sorry to hear that. The Catechism explains Original Sin so clearly.

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”. Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. 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.

Wow. Two paragraphs that agree! I’m impressed.

First it starts with 402 and, if you check the bottom of your CCC, it’ll quote Romans 5:12 which I’ve done my best to explain above.

Second, the poster to whom I responded was having a problem with 405 which, unless you already know a lot about the concept, can seem contradictory - as is the case with much of the CCC.

So it seems easy to you Nita, because, apparently, you already know about original sin.

Fran

 

[Nita]

Wow. Two paragraphs that agree! I’m impressed.

First it starts with 402 and, if you check the bottom of your CCC, it’ll quote Romans 5:12 which I’ve done my best to explain above.

Second, the poster to whom I responded was having a problem with 405 which, unless you already know a lot about the concept, can seem contradictory - as is the case with much of the CCC.

So it seems easy to you Nita, because, apparently, you already know about original sin.

Fran

I do know about original sin. But I also think those paragraphs are an excellent explanation for someone who does not know what original sin is.

When I first got the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I was very disappointed. I had been anticipating something more along the line of an encyclopedia I guess. Just look up a topic and all the info that had bearing on that topic would be contained very concisely in that entry. As you know, that is not the style of the Catechism. I was about to relegate it to some out of the way spot on the bookshelf and just forget about using it.
I can only think it was the Holy Spirit that took me in hand . I had the thought that maybe, before doing that, I ought to just sit down, start at the very beginning, and just read it. I thank the Lord that I followed that inspiration. The Catechism is beautiful. It’s It “builds”, so to speak - like a novel does. One paragraph/section prepares and forms a background for the next one.

 

[Nita]

I do know about original sin. But I also think those paragraphs are an excellent explanation for someone who does not know what original sin is.

When I first got the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I was very disappointed. I had been anticipating something more along the line of an encyclopedia I guess. Just look up a topic and all the info that had bearing on that topic would be contained very concisely in that entry. As you know, that is not the style of the Catechism. I was about to relegate it to some out of the way spot on the bookshelf and just forget about using it.
I can only think it was the Holy Spirit that took me in hand . I had the thought that maybe, before doing that, I ought to just sit down, start at the very beginning, and just read it. I thank the Lord that I followed that inspiration. The Catechism is beautiful.

The Catechism builds (my word for describing it). What you read at the start is the foundation for the paragraphs that follow.

 

[guanophore]

Ooooh. I almost missed this!

I’m not speaking of the evil and bad as described by Calvin. Depravity.

I am relieved.

  I'm rather shocked to read what you say:

but Adam’s sin is not "passed on to all of us

What is Original Sin then?

The Catechism states it better. 404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. 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.

Why are we baptized?

To restore us to the state of grace that Adam lost through personal sin.

 The consequence of Adam's sin is concupiscence.  Adam's sin is NOT concupiscence but Original Sin.  Which is passed on to all of us.

Yes, we are in agreement that the consequence of Adam’s sin is concupiscence.

We are in agreement that Adam’s sin was not concupiscence.

The term “original sin” is discussed in section [407 of the CCC

The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides](Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 1 PARAGRAPH 7) lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action and morals.

I think you meant the above - it’s all words.

Fran

You certainly have a right to your thoughts, and your opinions. You have come to the right place to discuss them.