Doctrine of Original Sin

[Riley259]

Richard Dawkins is a well known atheist who writes in his latest book, “The God Delusion” about what he calls the absurd concept of original sin. He in essense asks why a God would condemn the ancestors of the original parents to the stain of original sin (and all it’s consequences) even if they (the ancestors) were totally innocent of that original sin. How would people respond to Dawkin’s attack on original sin?

 

[TNT]

He will die and rot to dust in his grave, just as God told Adam HE would because of his original sin.

Then Original Sin in man is required if the Scriptures are to be consistent with reality.

I might add that it is also consistent with Mr Dawkin’s Life long disease received for no apparent cause on his part.

 

[BumpSetSpike]

I really have no idea. When I first heard of the concept of Original Sin that was the same thing I thought too. I even asked if, since my great great (so on) grandfather was the first murderer in America, am I going to be punished by his actions also? Someone replied that it goes on 10 generations… and what do you know? I’m the tenth generation. I do not know if this person was being sarcastic or joking, though.

 

[servus]

Original sin has been debated since the 5th century. Augustine taught that sin was passed on through reproduction. Ambrose taught that it was inherited from fallen society.

Of the new covenant Jeremiah 31:29 says “In those days they shall say no longer, the father’s have eaten a sour grape, and the childen’s teeth are set on edge, but every man shall die for his own iniquity”

My personal opinion is that, we inherit a fallen nature from our parents, but Jesus had this same nature (Romans 8:1-4), but did not excercise it. Like Ambrose says, we (all) are sinners because we live in a fallen world, and are surrounded by sin. Paul says that “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”. Jesus had the propensity to sin, even at peril of eternal loss, but did no sin. He was tempted like we are (Herbews 4:14-17) yet did not sin.

 

[Abiien]

The way I see it is…

Original Sin is passed down to children, considering the fact that the parent was also born with original sin. This is not to say that we are punished for our own parents, just original sin gives the devil a good stance against us.

I can go more indepth later, but i must head out now…

405 Although it is proper to each individual, 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.

I do not know much about baptism for i have no experience except what i have learned, so i raelly dont want to talk about it lol.

may the Grace of God be with you all!
Chris

 

[FCEGM]

. . .My personal opinion is that, we inherit a fallen nature from our parents, but Jesus had this same nature (Romans 8:1-4), but did not excercise it. Like Ambrose says, we (all) are sinners because we live in a fallen world, and are surrounded by sin. Paul says that “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”. Jesus had the propensity to sin,. . …

No, Our Lord could not sin. Please read this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=118803

 

[VociMike]

“O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem.” (“O happy fault which which received as its reward so great and so good a redeemer.”)

What happens without the effects of original sin? Adam and Eve still turned against God. 1/3 of the angels turned against God. So the situation is less black-and-white than Dawkins and others might think.

Without the Fall there is still the possibility of turning away from God, but without the Fall there is no uniting of God with mankind in the Person of Christ. Perhaps without the fall there is no full understanding of the choices we are allowed (for God or against God).

 

[Della]

I really have no idea. When I first heard of the concept of Original Sin that was the same thing I thought too. I even asked if, since my great great (so on) grandfather was the first murderer in America, am I going to be punished by his actions also? Someone replied that it goes on 10 generations… and what do you know? I’m the tenth generation. I do not know if this person was being sarcastic or joking, though.

When the writers of the Scriptures used phrases like “to the tenth generation” they meant to convey the idea that sin goes on and on and on when a family does not follow the Lord. It is NOT a condemnation of any person within that family who breaks away from the bad influences he may have had at home and turns to God. To say so is to misunderstand what the writer was saying and to make a very harsh judgment where no such judgment ought to be made. So, breath easy, dear BumpSetStrike, God judges you by your actions not by those of your family members.

 

[FCEGM]

Richard Dawkins is a well known atheist who writes in his latest book, “The God Delusion” about what he calls the absurd concept of original sin. He in essense asks why a God would condemn the ancestors of the original parents to the stain of original sin (and all it’s consequences) even if they (the ancestors) were totally innocent of that original sin. How would people respond to Dawkin’s attack on original sin?

In The Catholic Catechism, the author, John Hardon, S.J, writes this that seems to the point:

As Aquinas was later to explain, the essence of original sin is the deprivation of what God would have conferred on all of Adam’s descendants if the first man had not sinned. It is not some inherent evil in what God produces.

So in Original Sin we are not deprived of something that was rightfully ours, but rather it would have been ours had our first parent - who had the gift of Original Justice - not sinned and lost that gift for himself and his descendants. Original Justice is not something that was natural to Adam; it was a supernatural gift that would have been his permanently and would be ours from conception (as it was for the Blessed Virgin) had he not sinned.

Of course Dawkins takes issue with all this because He can’t see the cure: Jesus Christ.

 

[Eden]

We are born with a wounded nature and are subject to sin and death. What is Hawkins explanation for these realities?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

why a God would condemn the ancestors of the original parents to the stain of original sin (and all it’s consequences) even if they (the ancestors) were totally innocent of that original sin.

Think of it this way…

I give my children an allowance. I explained to them that it is an underserved gift, gratuitously given by me to them. They do nothing to deserve it, and as such, at any moment, I can simply stop giving the gift without any violation of justice. Seems reasonable, right?

Nonetheless, let’s say I simply stopped giving this gratuitous gift. My teenagers would undoubtedly “feel” as though they were a victim of some unjust act by me, simply because they came to take for granted that the gift I gave them is somehow an “entitlement.” Yet, it isn’t. Their feelings would be unfounded, because from the very start, they should have correctly understood that this was a gratuitous gift. If I give a gift of $20 one day, then does that mean that they are entitle to a $20 gift the next day, or the next? Not at all.

Compare this to God’s gifts to Adam and Eve…original justice. It comprised of actually three kinds of gifts: 1) natural, 2) supernatural, and 3) preternatural. The lack of these resultant lack of these gifts we call the effects of their original sin.

If God chose to give three gifts to Adam and Eve, then later chose not to give all three gifts or any, has God acted unjustly? Not at all, if one correctly understands these to be indeed undeserved gifts.

So, Adam and Eve, while having these three gifts, sinned against God. God decided not to take away all three gifts from Adam and Eve, but instead allowed them to retain one of the three–natural gifts. He decided to take away the supernatural gift and the preternatural gift from Adam and Eve as a consequence of their sin. He also decided that that only the natural gifts they retained would be given by natural human generation to the progeny of Adam and Eve.

So, although undeserved, we are given wonderful natural gifts from God, yet we are *not *given through natural human generation, the supernatural and preternatural gifts that Adam and Eve had at first (original justice). Does the fact that God does not automatically give us more gratuitous undeserved gifts mean there was some breach of justice? Of course not. They are gifts, not deserved, not an entitlement.

Richard Dawkins makes the error that many people make, that we are ENTITLED to supernatural and preternatural life. We aren’t. It seems to me he’s taking the viewpoint of a spoiled teenager, having become used to his gifts as thought it they were an entitlement, and as such cries fowl when he doesn’t received another $20 gift that following day, seemingly expecting that which he never earned or deserved.

We inherit undeserved natural gifts from Adam and Eve, by the goodness of God. We should praise him for this gift. If God so chooses–by His supernatural intervention–He were to grant us additional gifts, above and beyond the natural gifts already given, then we should praise him even more for these. Yet, if we never receive any other gifts from God, those that would shake their angry fist at the Gift-giver simply act like a spoiled child thinking they are owed further entitlements they do not deserve. We never deserved any of these gifts, so presuming that they are owed to us as Dawkins and others do, is simply flawed theology.

See **Original Sin - **View

 

[chlotilde]

We are born with a wounded nature and are subject to sin and death. What is Hawkins explanation for these realities?

I think Mr. Dawkins believes in the non-God delusion and would answer that there is no sin (offense to God), let alone an origin to it.

However, I also believe he understands at some level, the concept within the context of his own atheist doctrine of the selfish gene ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfish_gene), his evolutionary belief that a gene acts selfishly for the good of its own will rather than concerning itself with the will of the greater organism, for were not Adam and Eve duped by pride into following their own will rather than the will of God?

 

[servus]

No, Our Lord could not sin. Please read this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=118803

“For we have not an High Priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” Hebrews 4:14-16

There is a difference between being able to sin, and actually sinning. It says here in Hebrews that Christ was tempted. Why would He be tempted if it were not even possible for Him to sin?

 

[Saint_Augustin]

Richard Dawkins is a well known atheist who writes in his latest book, “The God Delusion” about what he calls the absurd concept of original sin. He in essense asks why a God would condemn the ancestors of the original parents to the stain of original sin (and all it’s consequences) even if they (the ancestors) were totally innocent of that original sin. How would people respond to Dawkin’s attack on original sin?

We the Catholics are baptizing the little babies because of the original sin.

 

[Ghosty]

Why would He be tempted if it were not even possible for Him to sin?

Because Satan can assault whomever he pleases. Being tempted doesn’t mean anything on the part of the person who is tempted, it only means that something outside is “trying” to draw the person to sin. In the case of Christ this was a person we know as Satan.

Being unable to sin doesn’t mean you can’t be spiritually assaulted, and that’s all temptation is. If Christ couldn’t be tempted, He wouldn’t have been human.

Peace and God bless!

 

[FCEGM]

“For we have not an High Priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” Hebrews 4:14-16

There is a difference between being able to sin, and actually sinning. It says here in Hebrews that Christ was tempted. Why would He be tempted if it were not even possible for Him to sin?

As I suggested, please read the thread where this was discussed at length.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Richard Dawkins is a well known atheist who writes in his latest book, “The God Delusion” about what he calls the absurd concept of original sin. He in essense asks why a God would condemn the ancestors of the original parents to the stain of original sin (and all it’s consequences) even if they (the ancestors) were totally innocent of that original sin. How would people respond to Dawkin’s attack on original sin?

I would ask him to do his homework before he lays into a doctrine of which he quite obviously understands almost nothing.​

 

[Crumpy]

Original sin was ‘original sin’ but it was a sin like any of ours today, in a way.

I’m sort of retired and have been so for over six years. I spend time whether I like or not thinking about sins that I have committed in my life.

There are so many of my sins which have the character that I damaged my relations with others in some way. The effect of those sins is something that lasts my whole life.

What I know of my ancestors, I am still suffering the effects of their sins in some way or another. In this town, when I was a kid, people would want to know whose kid I was. And, I was cast into the mold of those existing relationships, which I found I could never overcome.

What was frustrating, was that the people who cast me one way or another were Catholics. Their Catholic upbringing didn’t seem to sway their prejudices.

Part of what I’m referring to here as “casting” is just people stereotyping and pigeon-holing me, with me not having any ability to change their opinons.

I was an outcast, because my relatives were outcasts. People seemed to be very clannish here.

I think the effects of original sin are like that. We’re suffering from the effects of it, whether we realize it or not. And, add to that the effects of our own sins, and we are quite damaged goods. We need a Savior.

 

[BumpSetSpike]

When the writers of the Scriptures used phrases like “to the tenth generation” they meant to convey the idea that sin goes on and on and on when a family does not follow the Lord. It is NOT a condemnation of any person within that family who breaks away from the bad influences he may have had at home and turns to God. To say so is to misunderstand what the writer was saying and to make a very harsh judgment where no such judgment ought to be made. So, breath easy, dear BumpSetStrike, God judges you by your actions not by those of your family members.

Oh, Thank goodness!! LOL

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Richard Dawkins is a well known atheist who writes in his latest book, “The God Delusion” about what he calls the absurd concept of original sin. He in essense asks why a God would condemn the ancestors of the original parents to the stain of original sin (and all it’s consequences) even if they (the ancestors) were totally innocent of that original sin. How would people respond to Dawkin’s attack on original sin?

Answer 1) Why? If Dawkins is an atheist what does it matter what is said? If Dawkins wants and answer he probably is not an atheist. 2) My understanding is the “Original Sin” for ever changed the race of “man” by infusing knowledge, but that is not a required belief. More importantly it would have no meaning what so ever to a true atheist.

Same is true for any reader